India said in October 2024 that at least 26 extradition requests it had sent to Canada remained pending. Foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said the requests accumulated over more than a decade as the two governments exchanged allegations about violent activity and transnational repression.
A claim made during a diplomatic crisis
Jaiswal announced the figure at a regular foreign-ministry briefing days after Canada and India expelled diplomats. Canada alleged that Indian government agents were connected to homicides, extortion, intimidation and other crimes targeting people in Canada.
India denied the allegations and accused Canada of failing to act against people it described as extremists. The number of pending requests became part of that political argument, but a request’s age or existence does not establish the guilt of the person sought.
What extradition is
Extradition is the formal process by which one country asks another to surrender a person for prosecution or to serve a sentence. Canada and India have a bilateral extradition treaty, while Canadian domestic procedure is governed by the Extradition Act.
It is not the same as deportation. Immigration authorities address a person’s right to remain; extradition responds to a foreign criminal case and contains its own judicial and ministerial safeguards.
A request must meet legal tests
Canadian officials first determine whether a request is sufficiently complete to proceed. A court then considers whether the evidence, if believed, could justify committal for conduct that would also be criminal in Canada.
The hearing is not a trial of the foreign charge. It screens whether surrender is legally available while leaving the ultimate determination of guilt to a court in the requesting country.
The justice minister’s role
Even after a court orders committal, Canada’s justice minister decides whether to order surrender. The person sought can raise concerns such as persecution, unfair treatment, torture, the death penalty or abuse of process, and may seek judicial review.
These safeguards can make cases slow, especially when evidence needs translation, authentication or supplementation. Delay should be explained, but speed cannot replace the legal standard.
Why raw totals can mislead
India’s figure did not identify every requested person, alleged offence, date, procedural stage or reason for delay. Some files may be awaiting information from India; others may be before courts or ministers, and some may face a legal obstacle.
A transparent bilateral account would separate new requests, completed cases, refusals and files needing further evidence. Without that detail, “26 pending” describes a workload but not which government is responsible for each delay.
The Nijjar context
Relations deteriorated after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in 2023 that Canadian agencies were examining a potential link between Indian government agents and the killing of Sikh activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Surrey, British Columbia. India denied involvement.
Four men were charged in Canada in relation to the killing. Charges against individuals and allegations about a foreign state are related public issues but require separate evidence and findings.
Cooperation despite confrontation
Extradition works only when police, prosecutors, diplomats and central authorities can exchange reliable material. Reciprocal expulsions reduce the people available to perform that work and can make already difficult files harder.
Neither government should use an extradition request to punish lawful political speech. Nor should political disagreement protect a person from a properly supported case involving violence.
What accountability required
India was entitled to ask where its requests stood, and Canada was entitled to demand evidence that met Canadian law. Public confidence required case-specific reasons rather than insinuations based on nationality or political belief.
The diplomatic crisis made the figure headline-worthy, but the rule of law made the details decisive. Each of the 26 requests needed an individual answer: proceed, seek more evidence or refuse with reasons that could withstand judicial review.
