Countries Without an Extradition Treaty with India (2026 Guide)

India’s extradition system is governed primarily by the Extradition Act, 1962, while the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) maintains the official list of countries with which India has extradition treaties or extradition arrangements in force. As of the latest official position publicly confirmed by MEA and Parliament materials, India has 48 extradition treaties and 12 extradition arrangements.

India’s legal framework for extradition begins with the Extradition Act, 1962, a central statute enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the extradition of fugitive criminals. The Act applies across India and defines key concepts such as “extradition offence,” “foreign State,” and “fugitive criminal.”

In practice, extradition from or to India usually relies on a bilateral extradition treaty, an extradition arrangement, or in some cases a relevant multilateral convention where both countries are parties. MEA expressly states that in the absence of a bilateral treaty, agreement, or arrangement, a relevant multilateral convention may still provide a legal basis for extradition in respect of covered offences.

The MEA acts as India’s central authority for extradition matters, and its official treaty page is the key reference point for determining whether a country is a treaty state, an arrangement state, or a non-treaty state for India.

An extradition treaty is a formal bilateral legal instrument under which two states agree on the conditions, offences, documents, standards of proof, and procedures for surrendering a wanted person from one jurisdiction to the other. Under the Extradition Act, 1962, the term “extradition treaty” also includes certain earlier instruments and notified agreements or arrangements that extend to India.

For India, the distinction matters:

MEA currently separates these into two official lists: 48 treaty countries and 12 arrangement countries. It also notes that some arrangements are limited in scope. For example, the arrangements with Italy and Croatia are confined to crimes related to illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances because of the 1988 UN Convention framework.

As a practical legal rule, a country is usually treated as a non-treaty country for India if it does not appear on the official MEA list of extradition treaties or extradition arrangements currently in force. Based on the current MEA tables, the following sovereign states fall outside India’s listed treaty/arrangement network.

Asia

Europe

Africa

North America & the Caribbean

South America

Oceania

No. No extradition treaty does not mean immunity from return to India. MEA explicitly states that, in the absence of a bilateral treaty, a relevant multilateral convention may still be used as the legal basis for extradition where both states are parties and the offence falls within the convention.

There is also a practical difference between formal extradition and deportation/removal. Indian parliamentary material has recorded persons being extradited/deported to India from countries such as Nigeria and Morocco during 2002–2017, even though those countries do not appear on MEA’s current treaty/arrangement list. The careful inference is that return can still happen through deportation, immigration violations, comity, reciprocity, or another lawful non-treaty route rather than a standing bilateral extradition treaty.

So, from a legal and risk perspective, “no treaty” should be read as “no standing bilateral extradition instrument”, not as “no possible surrender or removal.”

According to MEA, India currently has 48 extradition treaties and 12 extradition arrangements in force. The official list is maintained by the Ministry of External Affairs and should always be checked for updates before publication or legal reliance.

Afghanistan (2016), Australia (2008), Azerbaijan (2013), Bahrain (2004), Bangladesh (2013), Belarus (2007), Belgium (1901), Bhutan (1996), Brazil (2008), Bulgaria (2003), Canada (1987), Chile (1897), Egypt (2008), France (2003), Germany (2001), Hong Kong (1997), Indonesia (2011), Iran (2008), Israel (2012), Kuwait (2004), Lithuania (2017), Malaysia (2010), Malawi (2018), Mauritius (2003), Mexico (2007), Mongolia (2001), Nepal (1953), Netherlands (1898), Oman (2004), Philippines (2004), Poland (2003), Portugal (2007), Russia (1998), Saudi Arabia (2010), South Africa (2003), South Korea (2004), Spain (2002), Switzerland (1880), Tajikistan (2003), Thailand (2013), Tunisia (2000), Turkey (2001), UAE (1999), UK (1992), Ukraine (2002), USA (1997), Uzbekistan (2000), Vietnam (2011).

Antigua & Barbuda (2001), Armenia (2019), Croatia (2011), Fiji (1979), Italy (2003), Papua New Guinea (1978), Peru (2011), Singapore (1972), Sri Lanka (1978), Sweden (1963), Tanzania (1966), New Zealand (2021). MEA specifically notes that the arrangements with Italy and Croatia are limited to narcotics-related crimes under the relevant UN convention framework.

Yes, in some circumstances.

Under MEA’s own guidance, where there is no bilateral treaty, agreement, or arrangement, a relevant multilateral convention may still support extradition if both states are parties and the offence is covered by that convention. Parliament materials also mention instruments such as the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC), the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, and the SAARC Regional Convention on Suppression of Terrorism as frameworks that can be used to bring fugitives back from states that are also party to those conventions.

Another major principle is dual criminality. MEA explains that for a foreign state other than a treaty state, an offence can still qualify if it is punishable with imprisonment of at least one year under the laws of both India and the foreign state. That means the conduct must generally be criminal in both places.

Example 1: Nigeria
Indian parliamentary material records at least one fugitive being extradited/deported to India from Nigeria during 2002–2017. Nigeria does not appear on MEA’s current treaty/arrangement list, which suggests that return was achieved through a route other than a standing bilateral extradition treaty.

Example 2: Morocco
The same MEA annexure records at least one fugitive being extradited/deported to India from Morocco during 2002–2017. Morocco is not on MEA’s current treaty/arrangement list either, again indicating that non-treaty return remains legally possible in some cases.

The core takeaway is simple: absence of a treaty can slow down or complicate return, but it does not eliminate legal exposure.