London's High Court has rejected fugitive diamond merchant Nirav Modi's request to delay his trial in the Bank of India (BoI) unpaid loan case. Modi, who is also fighting extradition to India over a separate $2 billion Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud and money laundering case, cited severe vision loss, clinical depression, and prison constraints as reasons for the postponement. The court, however, deemed his request as a tactic to evade justice and ruled that the trial will proceed as scheduled.

The pre-trial review, which Modi attended via video link from HMP Pentonville prison in north London, addressed his application to delay the eight-day trial set to commence on March 23. Judge Simon Tinkler concluded that Modi faced no "substantial disadvantage" that would prevent him from having "equality of opportunity in an adversarial process".

Justice Tinkler stated that he viewed Modi's application "as part of a repeated pattern of delay, non-compliance and general muddying of the case". He acknowledged the difficult circumstances imposed on Modi due to his imprisonment but noted that many litigants find themselves in similar situations. He further added that the threshold for adjourning a trial that is imminent and for which the claimant, Bank of India, has been waiting for many years to receive what it says it is entitled to from Mr Modi is not something that should be subject to further delay.

James Kinman, Modi's barrister, argued for the adjournment, citing the "prejudice" his client faced due to struggles with accessing court documents since being moved from HMP Thameside prison last October. Kinman detailed Modi's "severe vision loss" affecting 60% of his sight, clinical depression hindering his concentration, and previous cell sharing with an inmate who slept until noon.

Nirav Modi's legal team had previously opposed his extradition to India, raising concerns about his mental health, risk of suicide, and the fairness of a trial in India. They argued that extradition would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, citing the high suicide risk and inadequate mental health care in Indian prisons. They also raised concerns under Article 6, alleging political interference and insufficient procedural safeguards that would prevent him from getting a fair trial. His lawyers had challenged the adequacy of suicide prevention measures at Mumbai’s Arthur Road Jail.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), representing the Indian government, countered these arguments. They submitted that while Modi's suicide risk was real, it did not meet the legal threshold to prevent extradition. The CPS emphasized that the Indian government had provided reliable diplomatic assurances regarding psychiatric care, constant surveillance, and specialist interventions. They also maintained that India's judicial system functions independently and that Modi would be tried under public scrutiny with the opportunity to mount a vigorous defense.

In a prior ruling, Justice Sharp acknowledged Modi's mental illness and suicide risk but concluded that the risk did not reach the threshold required to prohibit extradition. This High Court decision removed the final legal obstacle to Nirav Modi's extradition. The matter now awaits formal notification to Indian authorities by the UK Home Office to coordinate Modi's handover.