PASSAGE Whether India and the US are signing a new extradition treaty or amending the existing one is somewhat unclear, but there is no doubt that India's extradition requests have usually been turned down by western democracies. For instance, when India requested the extradition of the JKLF leader, Amanullah Khan, who was visiting the US four years ago, a US lawcourt turned down the Indian request. So did a judge in Belgium when Khan went to Belgium: The reason is that our extradition treaties with all western nations forbid the extradition of a person on two grounds: (I) if he is caused or convicted of an offence of a political nature, and (II) if he won't get a fair trial in the country requesting his extradition. Unfortunately for India, its human-right record is so dismal that Khan had no difficulty convincing a US and Belgian judge against his deportation on the ground that Indian lawcourts would be severely prejudiced against him. Past experience shows that US and European judges have been sympathetic to fugitives whose extradition India has sought. Take, for instance, a typical case of Karamjit Singh Chahal, a Khalistani separatist in London. In December 1991 the British Home Office rejected his application for political asylum and ordered his deportation to India. Chahal, However, quickly had the order quashed by moving a London High Court which directed that his case be tried afresh. Chahal lost that appeal but he still didn't exhaust all avenues of redress. He moved the House of Lords, and even if he lost there, he could still appeal to the European Court of Justice. Chahal and Amanullah Khan's cases are just two of several extradition attempts pursued by India which have run a tortuous course. Take, for instance, the case of two Sikh terrorists, Sukhwinder Singh Sandhu and Ranjit Singh Gill, who had fled to the US after assassinating General AS Vaidya. A Pune court had sentenced them to death and when they were arrested by the US police in May 1987, the Indian Government requested their extradition. After examining evidence, a US magistrate ordered their return, but when they went in appeal, a senior judge ordered their case to be re-heard Sandhu and Gill were eventually extradited, but a full one and a half years after their arrest. If two convicted Indian terrorists could block their extradition for so long is it conceivable that others would not succeed in the same way? After all, we haven't been able to get the Union Carbide chief, Warren Anderson, to stand trial for the criminal negligence which led to the death of some 2, 500 people in Bhopal in December 1984

Q.1 A suitable title of the passage is 
A) Indo US relations 
B) Attitude of western democracies toward India's extradition request 
C) Indo-US extradition treaty 
D) Western criteria of extradition

Q.2 Western judges favoured the Indian political criminals and terrorists on the ground that 
A) India's law courts had a prejudiced attitude toward these people 
B) these people bribed the western judges. 
C) their own governments were also in favour of them 
D) none of these

Q.3 When British Home Office ordered Chahal's deportation to India, Chahal 
A) went to the European court of justice 
B) went to the London High Court for appeal. 
C) moved to the House of Lords 
D) Both b and c

Q.4 Which of the following statements according to the paragraph ~s correct? 
A) SS Sandhu and RS Gill were sentenced to death in a US court 
B) Sandhu and Gill were immediately deported to India when India requested. 
C) We have not been able to get Mr. Apderson to stand trial for Bhopal gas tragedy. 
D) Union carbide was an Indian company