A courtroom sketch of Tahawwur Rana in a federal court in Chicago. Ahead of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s visit to India, the government is pushing to revoke the citizenship of Tahawwur Rana Hussain, accused of playing a key role in the 2008 Mumbai terror attack.
| Photo Credit: AP

Washington DC:

The extradition of 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks accused Tahawwur Rana, announced by US President Donald Trump during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the country earlier this week, is likely to be delayed, sources have told NDTV. 

The sources said that after the US Supreme Court rejected Rana’s review petition, paving the way for his extradition, he has filed a final appeal on humanitarian grounds which may push back his arrival in India by a few weeks. 

Rana, a Canadian national of Pakistani origin, had earlier worked as a doctor for the Pakistan army and a federal jury had convicted him in 2011 of providing material support to Lashkar-e-Taiba, the terrorist organisation behind the 2008 attacks. Several places in Mumbai, including the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus and the iconic Taj Mahal Hotel, were attacked on November 26, 2008, and 166 people were killed, including 20 personnel from the police and the security forces, and 26 foreigners.

During a joint press conference with PM Modi on Thursday, US President Donald Trump had said, “Today, 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 (Tahawwur Rana), having to do with the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack to face justice in India. He is going back to India to face justice… We are giving a very violent man, it seems to me.”

Trump had also announced that India and the US will work together like “never before” to confront the threat of “radical Islamic terror” across the world.

On Saturday, sources told NDTV that Rana has filed a final appeal on humanitarian grounds in a US appeals forum and this could delay the extradition by a few weeks. Experts said that this is a legal matter and will not affect the strong diplomatic ties between India and the US. 

Rana’s Role

Pakistani-American David Coleman Headley, one of the main conspirators of the 26/11 attacks, had testified against Rana. Headley had revealed during his interrogation in the United States that he had travelled to India five times between 2007 and 2008 and conducted a recce of possible targets in Mumbai for the attacks. 

Headley had said he had visited India using a five-year visa that Rana had helped him obtain and that his co-conspirator had also aided him in opening an immigration company to hide his identity.

In 2011, Rana was acquitted by a US court on charges of abetting the Mumbai terror attacks but was convicted of providing material support to the Lashkar-e-Taiba and helping a terror plot in Denmark.

Washington DC:

In a big announcement after his bilateral talks with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, US President Donald Trump said that United States has agreed to extradite 2008 Mumbai terror attack accused Tahawwur Rana to India. The key accused in the 26/11 terror attack is currently at a high-security prison in the United States and India has been seeking his extradition for years.

“We are handing over a very dangerous man to India, one who is accused of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack,” President Trump said.

As recently as January 21, 2025, the US Supreme Court rejected Tahawwur Rana’s review petition paving way for his extradition to India. “In view of the recent Supreme Court decision, and consistent with applicable US law, the Department of State is currently evaluating next steps in this case,” the US State Department had said.

“We have long supported India’s efforts to ensure the perpetrators of the Mumbai terrorist attacks face justice,” the statement added.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi appreciated the US’s stand to extradite the terror accused and thanked President Trump to confirm his extradition. “A perpetrator of the Mumbai terror attack is being extradited for his interrogation and trial in India. I thank President Trump for expediting the process.”

Pakistani origin businessman Tahawwur Hussain Rana, who was convicted for his role in the 26/11 attacks on Mumbai that resulted in the death of 164 people, will now be interrogated by Indian agencies and face trial in India.

Rana’s co-conspirators included, among others, David Headley. Headley pleaded guilty and cooperated against Rana.

Rana was previously prosecuted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The second superseding indictment charged him in three counts. The jury convicted him on Count 11 (conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism in Denmark). The jury also convicted Rana on Count 12 (providing material support to Lashkar-e-Taiba).

174 people, including 20 security force personnel and 26 foreigners, were killed and over 300 were injured in the horrific terror attack that took place at Mumbai’s iconic Taj Mahal Hotel on November 26, 2008.
 

Mumbai attacks convict Tahawwur Hussain Rana has exhausted his legal options to evade extradition to India. This clears the obstacles to bring him back to face the charges for what is counted among the deadliest terror attacks across the world.

The 2008 terror attacks shook Mumbai, the financial capital of the country. At least 166 people were killed in the attacks by Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a banned outfit.

Ajmal Kasab, the sole attacker who was caught alive, was the only convict executed in the case. Two more masterminds are yet to be brought to justice, Rana being one of them.

Another is Sayed Zabiuddin Ansari alias Abu Jundal, an Indian operative who worked for the Lashkar terror group. He was arrested in 2012 after being identified by Kasab and is currently imprisoned in Mumbai.

Who Is Tahawwur Rana?

Rana, a Canadian national of Pakistani origin, had earlier worked as a doctor for the Pakistan Army. He had prior knowledge of the attacks, and a federal jury convicted him of helping Lashkar with material support in 2011.

He was also known to Pakistani-American David Headley, who was among the main conspirators of the 26/11 attacks. Rana and Hadley were arrested in 2009 by the FBI while plotting an attack against a Danish newspaper. During his interrogation in the US, Hadley had revealed before Indian officers that he had travelled to India five times between 2007 and 2008 and done recce for the Mumbai attacks – using a five-year visa that Rana had helped him obtain.

Hadley had also revealed the role of Lashkar in the Mumbai attacks and said he had opened an immigration company to hide his identity with Rana’s help. He had testified that Rana gave him all the logistical and financial support he needed.

To prepare for the attack, Rana visited Mumbai with his wife and stayed at the Taj Mahal Hotel, which later became a target of the attacks.

The Extradition

Besides being legal, Rana’s extradition has been a long diplomatic battle for India. In 2019, the government had first approached the US with a request to extradite him. For the next six years, India repeatedly followed this up with the US authorities while Rana looked for legal options.

The breakthrough came last August when a lower court ordered his extradition and was upheld by the Supreme Court earlier this month. It has now turned down a review request, clearing all the legal obstacles to his extradition.

Read: Terrorists To Economic Offenders: 5 Fugitives India Is Trying To Extradite

Since 2019, India has maintained Rana was the mastermind behind the 26/11 attacks.

In his defence, Rana had argued that he was tried in a local district court in Chicago for the Mumbai attacks, and he cannot be tried for the same offence in another country as per the extradition treaty between India and US.

The US Solicitor General, however, told the court that all the charges against Rana, on which India seeks his extradition, were not covered by the US government’s prosecution.

What’s Next

Legal obstacles being taken care of, it’s now a matter of time before Rana is extradited to India.

His extradition will not be just a big diplomatic victory but an example of how people cannot run from the law after committing a crime. His interrogation on the Indian land will help Indian officers reveal new details and missing links.

Related to the 26/11 attacks or not, cases can be reopened if the investigators find any clue from Rana. If someone evaded enforcement radar in the past, they could face a fresh probe.

Rana has been a close associate of the Pakistani spy agency ISI and by bringing him to India, Indian agencies will get access to what actually transpired behind this conspiracy, said PK Jain, former police chief of Maharashtra.

“Rana is aware of the operations of the ISI and Pakistani elements in America and India. He’s going to be a storehouse of information. I’m sure Indian agencies will be able to dig out a lot of important information from him,” he told NDTV.

Aniket Nikam, an advocate at the Bombay High Court, said once Rana is brought back, a fresh case will be filed against him and a new chargesheet will be prepared. India and the US had signed an extradition treaty in 1998, under which the process of bringing him back had started, he said.

The extradition process will start with Rana’s deportation from the US. Indian officers will go there and take him into custody, after which he will face the trial, said Mr Nikam.

“The US Supreme Court has rejected Rana’s appeal. After that you have no other option left. He will be brought to India. This victory was achieved through diplomatic channels. He will be brought to India as soon as possible,” said the advocate.

Washington:

In a major setback to Pakistani-origin Canadian businessman Tahawwur Rana, who is sought by India for his involvement in the 2008 Mumbai terror attack, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that he is extraditable to India under the extradition treaty between the two countries.

“The (India-US Extradition) Treaty permits Rana’s extradition,” the court said in its ruling on August 15.

Ruling on an appeal filed by Rana, a panel of judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court in the Central District of California’s denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging a magistrate judge’s certification of his as extraditable to India for his alleged participation in terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

Under the limited scope of habeas review of an extradition order, the panel held that Rana’s alleged offense fell within the terms of the extradition treaty between the United States and India, which included a Non Bis in Idem (double jeopardy) exception to extraditability “when the person sought has been convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the offence for which extradition is requested”.

Relying on the plain text of the treaty, the State Department’s technical analysis, and persuasive case law of other circuits, the panel held that the word “offence” refers to a charged crime, rather than underlying acts, and requires an analysis of the elements of each crime.

The panel of three judges concluded that a co-conspirator’s plea agreement did not compel a different result. The panel held that the Non Bis in Idem exception did not apply because the Indian charges contained distinct elements from the crimes for which Rana was acquitted in the United States.

In its ruling, the panel also held that India provided sufficient competent evidence to support the magistrate judge’s finding of probable cause that Rana committed the charged crimes. The three panel of judges were Milan D Smith, Bridget S Bade, and Sidney A Fitzwater.

Rana, a Pakistani national, was tried in a US district court on charges related to his support for a terrorist organisation that carried out large scale terrorist attacks in Mumbai. A jury convicted Rana of providing material support to a foreign terrorist organisation and conspiring to provide material support to a foiled plot to carry out terrorist attacks in Denmark.

However, the jury acquitted Rana of conspiring to provide material support to terrorism related to the attacks in India. After Rana served seven years in prison for those convictions and upon his compassionate release, India issued a request for his extradition to try him for his alleged participation in the Mumbai attacks.

Before the magistrate judge who initially decided Rana’s extraditability (the extradition court), Rana argued that the US extradition treaty with India protected him from extradition because of its Non Bis in Idem (double jeopardy) provision. He also argued that India did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate probable cause that he committed the charged crimes.

The extradition court rejected Rana’s arguments and certified that he was extraditable. After Rana raised the same arguments in a habeas petition in district court (the habeas court), the habeas court affirmed the extradition court’s findings of facts and conclusions of law.

In his appeal, Rana argued that he cannot be extradited based on conduct for which he was acquitted in the United States because the word “offence” refers to underlying acts. The US government argued that “offence” refers to a charged crime and requires an analysis of the elements of each charged crime.

Thus, according to the government, the Treaty permits Rana’s extradition because the Indian charges contain distinct elements from the crimes for which he was acquitted in the United States.

Judge Smith said that the Treaty’s plain terms, the post-ratification understanding of the signatories, and persuasive precedent all support the government’s interpretation. Rana argued, however, that, based on the government’s interpretation of the Treaty in Headley’s plea agreement, we should judicially estop the government from advocating for its current interpretation of the Treaty. “We decline to do so,” Judge Smith said.

“Because the parties do not dispute that the crimes charged in India have elements independent from those under which Rana was prosecuted in the United States, the Treaty permits Rana’s extradition,” Judge Smith said.

Rana has the option of appealing against this ruling. He still has not run out of all the legal options to prevent his extradition to India.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)