Washington: Tahawwur Rana, convicted in connection with the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, has taken his legal battle to the US Supreme Court. His attorney has urged the court to review a lower court’s decision to extradite him to India, invoking the principle of double jeopardy, which bars an individual from being tried or punished twice for the same offence.

India is seeking the extradition of Rana, a Canadian national of Pakistani origin, for his alleged role in the deadly attacks. The 26/11 siege, carried out by 10 Pakistani terrorists, claimed 166 lives, including six Americans, and lasted over 60 hours across Mumbai’s key locations.

Rana’s legal team filed a “petition for a writ of certiorari” on November 13, after losing appeals in lower and federal courts, including the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. This petition marks Rana’s final legal attempt to avoid extradition to India.

US Solicitor General Elizabeth B Prelogar, on December 16, urged the Supreme Court to reject Rana’s petition. However, his attorney, Joshua L. Dratel, countered on December 23, challenging the government’s stance and pleading with the court to accept the writ.

“The (Supreme) Court should grant the writ. On the merits, it should hold that the term ‘offence’ in the double jeopardy provision of the United States-India extradition treaty (and many other similar treaties) refers to the conduct underlying the charges in the two countries, rather than the elements of the crimes the respective countries have charged,” Dratel argued.

The Supreme Court has scheduled a conference on January 17 to address this matter.

Rana’s extradition is sought on charges stemming from his association with Pakistani-American terrorist David Coleman Headley, a key conspirator in the Mumbai attacks. Rana remains in custody in Los Angeles.

In his petition, Rana emphasized that he was tried and acquitted in a Chicago federal court on charges related to the 2008 Mumbai attacks. “India now seeks to extradite him for trial on charges based on the identical conduct at issue in the Chicago case,” the petition stated.

US Solicitor General Prelogar countered, stating, “The government does not concede that all of the conduct on which India seeks extradition was covered by the government’s prosecution in this case.”

She further noted, “For example, India’s forgery charges are based in part on conduct that was not charged in the United States: petitioner’s use of false information in an application to formally open a branch office of the Immigration Law Center submitted to the Reserve Bank of India.”

“It is not clear that the jury’s verdict in this case—which involves conspiracy charges and was somewhat difficult to parse—means that he has been ‘convicted or acquitted’ on all of the specific conduct that India has charged,” she added.

(With PTI Inputs)