Question

Which of the following is the underlying basis for extradition?

• A. It is in the interest of civilised communities that criminals should not go unpunished
• B. It is recognised as a part of the comity of nations that one State should ordinarily afford to another State assistance towards bringing offenders to justice.
• C. It is unjust to surrender to a foreign country a person accused of having committed a crime there for trial in accordance with the system for the administration of justice prevailing in that country because that system is substantially different.
• D. Both (A) and (B).
• A. The Central Government may, by notified order, treat any Convention to which India and the foreign State are parties, as an extradition treaty made by India with that foreign State
• B. The Central Government may, by law, treat any Convention to which India is a party, as an extradition treaty made by India with that foreign State
• C. The Central Government may, by notified order, treat the pari materia provisions of the statutes of both States relating to extradition, as an extradition treaty made by India with that foreign State
• D. Extradition is not permissible.
• A. Multilateral treaties
• B. Customary international law
• C. Jus cogens
• D. General principles of international law
• A. Rule of reciprocity
• B. Rule of non-inquiry
• C. Rule of non-inquiry
• D. Rule of double criminality
• A. The position of an individual as a subject of international law, and the obligation of States towards individuals
• B. The position of State as a subject of international law, and the obligation of individuals in international law.
• C. The position of an individual as a subject of State, and the obligation of States in international law.
• D. The position of an individual as a subject of State, and the obligation of States in international law.
• A. Both are non-consensual exercises and not consensual treaty obligations
• B. Both relate to ordering a person to move outside a territory.
• C. Both are precursors to extradition.
• D. Both are acts of sovereign States.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

The correct option is (D) : Both (A) and (B).

Answer 2

The question asks for the underlying justification for the practice of extradition. The soundest approach is to assess each proposed justification independently to see whether it actually supports extradition, or whether it in fact argues against it, before deciding whether more than one of them is sound.

1. Option (A) - it is in the interest of civilised communities that criminals should not go unpunished: this is a genuine rationale for extradition, since without a mechanism to hand over fugitives who flee across borders, offenders could simply escape justice by crossing a frontier, undermining the basic purpose of criminal law.
2. Option (B) - it is recognised as part of the comity of nations that one State should ordinarily assist another in bringing offenders to justice: this is also a genuine and independent rationale, resting not on the interests of any one state alone but on mutual respect and cooperation between sovereign states in law enforcement, which is the diplomatic and international-law foundation on which extradition treaties are built.
3. Option (C) - it is unjust to surrender a person for trial in a country whose justice system is substantially different: this is not a basis for extradition at all; it is an argument raised against extradition in particular cases, often linked to the rule of non-inquiry or human-rights objections, and does not explain why extradition exists as a practice in the first place.
4. Option (D) - both (A) and (B): since (A) and (B) are each independently valid and complementary justifications, one resting on the practical need to punish offenders and the other on inter-state cooperation, and neither is contradicted by the other, they can and should be read together as forming the combined underlying basis for extradition.

Because options (A) and (B) are both sound and reinforce rather than exclude each other, while (C) actually cuts against extradition rather than supporting it, the complete answer is that both (A) and (B) together form the basis.

Hence, the correct answer is Both (A) and (B).

Answer 3

The correct option is (A) : The Central Government may, by notified order, treat any Convention to which India and the foreign State are parties, as an extradition treaty made by India with that foreign State

Answer 4

This question tests a specific statutory mechanism under the Extradition Act, 1962, for situations where India has no bilateral extradition treaty with a foreign State. The best approach is to recall what that provision actually authorises the Central Government to do, and then test each option against that precise mechanism.

1. Option (A) - the Central Government may, by notified order, treat any Convention to which India and the foreign State are parties as an extradition treaty: this correctly reflects the statutory device under the Act, which allows the government to bridge the absence of a bilateral treaty by relying on a multilateral Convention that both countries have already joined, and doing so through a notified order, which is the executive mechanism the Act actually provides.
2. Option (B) - the Central Government may, by law, treat any Convention as an extradition treaty: this option gets the mechanism wrong. The Act empowers the executive to act through a notified order, an administrative act, not through fresh legislation, so requiring "law" misdescribes the process.
3. Option (C) - the Central Government may, by notified order, treat pari materia provisions of both States' statutes as an extradition treaty: this invents a mechanism that does not exist under the Act. The statute speaks of a Convention to which both states are parties, not of comparable domestic statutory provisions being treated as a treaty.
4. Option (D) - extradition is not permissible: this is factually incorrect, since the very purpose of the notified-order mechanism is to make extradition possible even without a formal bilateral treaty, so long as a common Convention exists.

Only option (A) accurately states both the trigger, namely a shared Convention, and the mechanism, namely a notified order, that the Extradition Act, 1962, provides for situations without a bilateral treaty.

Hence, the correct answer is the Central Government may, by notified order, treat any Convention to which India and the foreign State are parties, as an extradition treaty made by India with that foreign State.

Answer 5

The correct option is (B) : Customary international law

Answer 6

The statement to be completed says that because of the negative attitude of a certain source of law towards extradition, the subject is largely governed by bilateral treaties instead. The task is to identify which body of law is described as taking a "negative" stance, meaning it does not itself impose a general duty to extradite.

1. Option (A) - Multilateral treaties: multilateral treaties are not a source with a "negative attitude"; where they exist and both states are parties, they can positively support extradition, as seen in the notified-order mechanism, so this does not fit the description of a source working against the practice.
2. Option (B) - Customary international law: customary international law, built from consistent and general state practice accepted as legally binding, has traditionally not recognised any general obligation on states to extradite fugitive offenders. Because there is no settled customary rule compelling extradition, states have had to fill that gap through individual, negotiated bilateral treaties, which is exactly the "negative attitude" being described.
3. Option (C) - Jus cogens: jus cogens refers to peremptory norms of international law that no state can derogate from, such as prohibitions on genocide or slavery, and extradition obligations have never been recognised as belonging to this category, so it is not the source being referred to here.
4. Option (D) - General principles of international law: general principles operate as a supplementary source used to fill gaps, but they are not described in extradition literature as having taken a specifically negative stance on the subject the way customary international law has.

Since it is the absence of any binding customary rule requiring extradition that has pushed states toward individually negotiated bilateral arrangements, the source with the "negative attitude" is customary international law.

Hence, the correct answer is Customary international law.

Answer 7

The correct option is (B) : Rule of non-inquiry

Answer 8

The question asks which rule governs how the requested State treats the criminal justice system of the requesting State when deciding on extradition. The way to answer is to define what each named rule actually addresses and then see which one specifically concerns the requested State's attitude toward the fairness or nature of the requesting State's judicial process.

1. Option (A) - Rule of reciprocity: this rule concerns whether states extend extradition assistance to each other on a mutual, give-and-take basis, that is, whether one state will cooperate because the other state would do the same in a reverse situation. It does not address how the requested State views the fairness of the requesting State's justice system.
2. Options (B) and (C) - Rule of non-inquiry: under this rule, courts of the requested State generally decline to examine or sit in judgment over the fairness, procedures, or likely outcome of the criminal justice system of the requesting State, proceeding instead on the assumption that the requesting State will treat the fugitive fairly once surrendered. This is precisely the rule that addresses the requested State's stance "vis-a-vis the nature of criminal justice system" of the other country, which is exactly what the question asks about.
3. Option (D) - Rule of double criminality: this rule requires that the act for which extradition is sought must be an offence under the laws of both the requesting and the requested State. It is about the nature of the offence, not about the nature of the requesting State's judicial system, so it does not answer the question as posed.

Since only the rule of non-inquiry is concerned with the requested State's approach to the requesting State's justice system, it is the rule the question is describing, notwithstanding that the option repeats in the list.

Hence, the correct answer is Rule of non-inquiry.

Answer 9

The correct option is (A) : The position of an individual as a subject of international law, and the obligation of States towards individuals

Answer 10

The statement in the question raises whether an extradited fugitive can complain about the judicial process in the requesting State after being handed over, independent of what the requested State thinks about it. This turns on a deeper theoretical debate about whose rights and obligations international law actually recognises, so the way to answer is to identify which option correctly frames that debate.

1. Option (A) - the position of an individual as a subject of international law, and the obligation of States towards individuals: this correctly frames the debate. Traditionally, only states were treated as subjects of international law, with individuals merely being objects whose treatment was determined solely by their own state. The question of whether a fugitive retains standing to complain about treatment in the requesting State, independent of the requested State's position, is precisely a question of whether the individual is now recognised as having direct rights and standing under international law, and whether states owe direct obligations to that individual.
2. Option (B) - the position of the State as a subject of international law, and the obligation of individuals in international law: this inverts the debate. States have always been recognised as subjects of international law; the live and debatable question is not about states' status but about individuals' status, and this option also wrongly frames individuals as bearing obligations rather than being possible rights-holders.
3. Options (C) and (D) - the position of an individual as a subject of State, and the obligation of States in international law: these options describe the individual as a subject "of the State", which is a domestic law relationship of citizen to sovereign, not the international law question of whether the individual has standing as a subject of international law itself. This mischaracterises the level at which the debate operates.

The question is specifically about whether the individual has independent standing on the international plane, which is the individual-as-subject-of-international-law debate, not a domestic subject-of-State relationship.

Hence, the correct answer is the position of an individual as a subject of international law, and the obligation of States towards individuals.

Answer 11

The correct option is (C) : Both are precursors to extradition.

Answer 12

The passage draws a contrast between extradition on one hand, and deportation and exclusion on the other. The question asks which statement is NOT a similarity between deportation and exclusion, so each option must be tested against what the passage actually says these two concepts share.

1. Option (A) - both are non-consensual exercises and not consensual treaty obligations: the passage explicitly states that deportation and exclusion are both basically non-consensual exercises, while extradition rests on a consensual treaty obligation, so this is a genuine similarity between the two and is not the answer.
2. Option (B) - both relate to ordering a person to move outside a territory: deportation orders a person to leave a country, and exclusion prohibits a person from staying in part of a sovereign state, both being acts that push a person out of or away from a territory, so this too is a genuine shared feature.
3. Option (C) - both are precursors to extradition: the passage does the opposite of linking these concepts to extradition; it deliberately distinguishes extradition from deportation and from exclusion as separate mechanisms, not as steps that lead into extradition. Nothing in the passage supports treating deportation or exclusion as a precursor stage of extradition, which makes this the statement that is not a genuine similarity, and in fact not even an accurate description of either concept.
4. Option (D) - both are acts of sovereign States: both deportation and exclusion are exercises of a state's authority over who may remain within or enter its territory, making this a genuine similarity as well.

Since (A), (B) and (D) each restate something the passage actually says both concepts share, while (C) contradicts the passage's express distinction between extradition and these two other mechanisms, (C) is the one that is not a similarity.

Hence, the correct answer is Both are precursors to extradition.