Tihar Jail, NIA Trial: What Awaits Tahawwur Rana Extradited to India from US

Tahawwur Rana, a key suspect in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, arrived in India on 10 April after he was extradited from the US.

(Photo: Aroop Mishra/The Quint)

“Seventeen years after he attacked our country, it is a pleasure to confirm that (Tahawwur) Rana is on his way to India,” a senior-level MEA staffer told The Quint hours after Rana, a key suspect in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, was handed over to Indian officials in the US.

A team of three senior officers from the National Investigation Agency (NIA), accompanied by three officials from the Indian intelligence agencies, had earlier travelled to Los Angeles to take custody of Rana, who was detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center in California.

Rana, a Pakistani-born Canadian national and Chicago businessman, was alleged to have facilitated reconnaissance for these attacks via his immigration consultancy business.

Both the Indian authorities and US court documents accessed by The Quint say that Rana's company provided cover for Pakistani American David Headley, who conducted surveillance for the attacks that killed 166 and injured hundreds. Headley, who pleaded guilty in the US and cooperated with investigators, implicated Rana.

In 2011, the US District Court in Chicago only convicted Rana of conspiracy to provide “material support” to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) between 2005 and 2009, and of supporting a plan to murder the employees of a Danish newspaper which was never executed. But importantly, he was acquitted on the charge of provisioning “material support” to the LeT in connection with the Mumbai attacks.

And yet, it took nearly a decade and a half before Rana could be extradited. What took so long?

Rana’s Extradition History

Rana’s extradition case began in earnest in 2020 when the Narendra Modi government formally requested his transfer from the US to stand trial for the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, triggering a process governed by the 1997 US-India Extradition Treaty and US extradition laws. Significantly, this request was based on charges distinct from those he had previously faced.

The case was first examined by a US Magistrate Judge in Los Angeles, who held multiple hearings to determine whether the extradition request met the legal standards.

In a key decision issued in May 2023, the court ruled that Rana was “extraditable”, finding there was sufficient legal basis to send him to India.

Moreover, according to the court’s order, reviewed by The Quint, the extradition treaty’s protection against “double jeopardy” (being tried twice for the same crime) did not apply.

In response, Rana filed a habeas corpus petition – a legal challenge to his extradition – arguing that it would violate his rights and international law. His plea was denied, with the court finding that there was “no violation of constitutional protections or the extradition treaty”.

According to the US Department of Justice's brief, the court agreed that the Indian case involved new and different charges, including the murder of Indian citizens and planning attacks from foreign soil.

Rana’s final shot was his appeal to the US Supreme Court in late 2024, claiming the lower courts had applied the wrong legal test to determine whether the offenses were “the same.” He argued that the courts focused too narrowly on legal definitions rather than the full context of his alleged conduct. In his reply, Rana also warned of “serious risk of torture” in Indian custody, a reply brief accessed by The Quint said.

However, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case and subsequently rejected his emergency request for a last-minute stay, effectively ending Rana’s legal options.

Due Process or Delays: What Took So Long?

Following his initial arrest in 2011, the US did not grant India’s requests to extradite Rana and Headley. The US authorities said that Rana would first be required to serve his 14-year sentence in the US. On the other hand, Headley had entered a plea bargain with the US government for a reduced 35-year sentence and protection from extradition to India.

This created one of the earliest stumbling blocks for India’s hopes to extradite Rana, which only picked up pace in 2019. He was only convicted for supporting a terror plot in Denmark. This created a double jeopardy dilemma when India later sought his extradition. Could he be retried in India for essentially the same acts?

Things changed in 2020 when Rana was granted an early release on health grounds from Terminal Island prison in California after testing positive for COVID-19.

A diplomatic note was submitted to the US in December 2019, and with Rana’s sentence nearing its conclusion, the Government of India revived its extradition request and requested Rana’s re-arrest. He was subsequently arrested in Los Angeles in June 2020.

According to court filings reviewed by The Quint, the issue became a central focus. As per the US Department of Justice’s opposition to Rana’s petition, “[T]he Indian charges involve different legal elements, victims, and conduct, satisfying the treaty’s requirement that extradition is not barred by prior acquittal”. However, the courts required years of due process and extensive legal analysis before coming to a decision.

Even though India and the US share a comprehensive extradition treaty, it also includes built-in checks and balances, particularly Article 6(1), which prohibits extradition if the person “has been tried and acquitted in the requested state (i.e., the US) for the same offence.”

The core legal issue became how to interpret the word “offense” in this context. Two major interpretations exist:

• A conduct-based approach, which considers whether the factual conduct that forms the basis of the foreign charge has already been prosecuted in the US

• An elements-based approach, which considers whether the legal elements of the offense under each country's law are the same

The debate over whether Rana’s conduct – facilitating David Headley’s travel and business cover – amounted to the “same offence”. As per court records, Rana’s lawyers argued that his extradition would violate the treaty’s double jeopardy clause. The government, meanwhile, applied the “elements test,” holding that the Indian statutes were different in nature and scope.

This debate stretched the case across two levels of the federal judiciary consuming several years.

Moreover, Rana’s lawyers argued that the Indian government’s "theory” that Headley told Rana he was working with Lashkar, and that Rana furthered Headley's efforts on Lashkar's behalf “depends entirely on Headley's testimony and thus on his veracity.”

They further claimed that no document or witness “corroborates Headley's claim to have told Rana about his activities on Lashkar's behalf” and added that the former is a “rewarded felon and serial cooperator” with a “lengthy history of general deceitfulness.”

However, it would be inconsistent to call due process a delay.

What Changed? What Next?

A staffer at the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), who was present while the extradition processes were underway, told The Quint, on condition of anonymity:

“Behind the scenes, there was a change in diplomatic momentum. We’ve been pushing for years, but only recently has the US foreign policy shown strong alignment to ours.”

“There’s been a significant shift in how counterterrorism cooperation is prioritised, especially under the current strategic framework between India and the US. The coordination intensified after high-level meetings last year, where the Rana case was raised multiple times. It was clear that both sides wanted to avoid any perception of shielding terror suspects. The State Department became far more responsive—they were willing to move once all legal hurdles were cleared. This kind of alignment wasn’t there even two or three years ago.”

“It is only recently that the US State Department has become more assertive in honoring treaty obligations,” the MEA staffer added.

During a joint press conference with Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the White House in February this year, US President Donald Trump announced that his administration has approved the extradition of "very evil" Rana to face justice in India.

"I am pleased to announce that my administration has approved the extradition of one of the plotters and one of the very evil people of the world, having to do with the horrific 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack to face justice in India. So, he is going to be going back to India to face justice."

Donald Trump

A Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) staffer told The Quint that the NIA has registered a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Indian Penal Code, and the Explosives Act.

The NIA team, who brought Rana back to India on Thursday, 10 April, is led by Inspector General-rank officer Ashish Batra and includes Deputy Inspector General-rank officer Jaya Roy and a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The team had departed for the US on Sunday, 6 April, following confirmation of the ‘surrender warrant’ required before the handover of a fugitive to a foreign country.

Rana will likely be housed in a high-security ward in Tihar Jail and is likely to be tried in a special NIA court, the source added.

According to the staffer, Rana is expected to be questioned by the NIA at its Delhi headquarters.