Extradition treaty without legislative force cannot justify detention under procedure established by law

A treaty for extradition could not, by itself, authorise arrest and detention because treaties are part of international law but do not become municipal law without legislative enactment. The Court held that an extradition arrangement lacking statutory force could not satisfy the constitutional requirement that personal liberty be curtailed only by procedure established by law, and a mere executive practice of surrendering fugitives was not law continued under the Constitution. Detention based on such a treaty was therefore not legally sustainable, and release followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a treaty for extradition, in the absence of legislative enactment, could authorise arrest and detention so as to satisfy the requirement of procedure established by law under the Constitution.

Analysis: The Court held that treaties are part of international law but do not form part of the municipal law of the land unless they are expressly given legal force by legislation. The extradition arrangement relied upon in the case had never been enacted into law, and a mere executive practice of surrendering fugitive criminals could not be treated as law continued under the Constitution. Since personal liberty can be curtailed only according to procedure established by law, detention under a treaty lacking the force of law was not legally sustainable.

Conclusion: The detention was unlawful and the petitioner was entitled to be released.

---