India, like many nations, presently claims the authority to project its criminal laws beyond its territorial borders. Indeed, India now intends its criminal laws to activity occurring halfway around the globe. Yet this energetic boom of extraterritorial jurisdiction throws into sharp relief a variety of opposing legal interests: most prominently, those of the foreign individuals to whom India subjects its laws. Are there constitutional limits on the ability of India to project its criminal laws anywhere in the world, and to anyone it likes? If so, what are they, in what constitutional provisions do they reside, and are they enforceable in Indian courts? And importantly, if such limits exist, do they hamper the ability of India effectively to prosecute dangerous criminals for extraterritorial activity?

In response to these questions, I focus on India's anti-terrorism legislation because given recent history and the current political environment, acts of terrorism are both the most palpable crimes to which India applies its laws extraterritorially and the crimes over which India most aggressively asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction. In fact, it is presently the stated policy of India to wage a war against “terrorism” writ large, wherever it occurs around the world. And a powerful tool in this war is the arsenal of far-reaching anti-terrorism laws currently promulgated in the code.

The Article engages and weaves together a number of different areas of law: chiefly, constitutional law, criminal law, and international law. Indeed, I conclude ultimately that while the present constitutional landscape prescribes certain structural and due process limits on the India' ability to project and apply extraterritorially its anti-terrorism laws, doctrines of international law intersect with the Constitution to avoid these limits, leaving India virtually unconstrained to extend the core panoply of its anti-terrorism laws to foreigners abroad. This may seem surprising at first: international law is often thought of as a constraint on state power. Contrary to this assumption, I show that international law actually expands the power of the India under the Constitution in the context of extraterritorial jurisdiction over terrorist acts committed abroad. Specifically, the international legal doctrine of universal jurisdiction interacts with sources of congressional lawmaking authority to overcome any potential constitutional obstacles to the extraterritorial application of India. Law to the perpetrators of “universal” crimes under international law; crimes that include terrorist acts like the bombing of public places, infrastructure, transportation systems, airports and aircraft, as well as hijacking, hostage taking, and even financing foreign terrorist organizations.

In the Indian Penal Code it is specifically provided that if any citizen of India committed crime anywhere, even out of India, will be prosecuted according to the Indian Penal Code Section 4 of the IPC states that “Section 4. Extension of Code to extra-territorial offences

The provisions of this Code apply also to any offence committed by (1) Any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India; (2) Any person on any ship of aircraft registered in India wherever it may be.

Explanation: In this section the word "offence" includes every act committed outside India which, if committed in India, would be punishable under this code.”

It means that states claim control over their citizens within the territorial limits of the state, and over its ships and planes. Offences committed within the state, or on ships and aircraft belonging to the state, will be tried in the courts of the state.

When offences are committed abroad, the state where the offender is found may be required to send him back, or extradite him, to the country where the offence was committed in order to stand trial. Some countries will extradite on the basis of a treaty with the requesting country, and some have legislation that allows extradition to be granted on the request of a foreign government. However, some countries object to extraditing their nationals, and for this reason they will prosecute their national at home for an offence committed abroad, rather than send him back to the place where the offence took place. This is called the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction.

For a case to be prosecuted extraterritorially, several conditions must be taken into consideration. These are: Double criminality: The offence committed abroad is often required to be also an offence in the national's own country. Double jeopardy: A person cannot be tried twice for the same offence, so if an offender has been prosecuted where the offence was committed, he usually cannot be tried again in his home country for that offence.

Complaint: In most countries a prior complaint of the victim, or a formal request for prosecution from the foreign government, is necessary before the offender's country will prosecute him.

Applicable law: In most countries, the national law will be applied to the prosecution. But some countries will apply the law of the place where the offence was committed if it is more lenient than the national law.

Some countries apply extraterritorial jurisdiction to offences committed by their nationals abroad as a general principle. Such countries include Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. There are no special provisions to deal with crimes connected with child sex tourism; the jurisdiction is simply there under the general category of serious crimes that can be prosecuted at home, even though they were committed abroad. Some countries that apply extraterritorial jurisdiction as a matter of general principle have facilitated prosecution of offences against children. Countries such as Belgium, France and Germany have adjusted their legislation to make it easier to prosecute a case where children are the victims. The Netherlands, for example, does not require a complaint by the victim or the foreign government to be made; Dutch prosecutors can pursue a case on their own initiative. In France, legislation has brought all serious sexual offences against children into the category of crime that could be prosecuted at home, without any need for a prior complaint, and no double criminality requirement.

Some countries have legislated specifically for crimes of child sex tourism. This includes Australia, which by the Crimes (Child Sex Tourism) Amendment Act of 1994 extended the existing extraterritorial jurisdiction to offences against children committed abroad. When designing or extending extraterritorial jurisdiction so that crimes of child sexual abuse can be pursued in the offender's own country, there are a number of ways in which the jurisdiction can be made more efficient.

Differences in language, culture, and police and legal systems make extraterritorial jurisdiction difficult to apply in practice. Although a crime took place in country 'N the evidence has to be gathered by the police of country 'B' where the trial will take place. Criminal evidence has to be obtained and preserved under very strict conditions for the burden of proof to be discharged in court, so the police can encounter many difficulties. Several government departments may also be involved. Training for lawyers, judges, prosecutors and police in understanding and applying the jurisdiction is important. Embassy personnel need clear guidelines for dealing with their offending nationals abroad, and training on how to supply information. Cooperation between jurisdictions is vitally important: law enforcers have to cooperate to explain their rules of evidence to each other. Mutual legal assistance treaties are essential to ensure this cooperation. Treaties allow for the taking of testimony of persons in the requested state, the provision of documents, records or evidence, serving of documents, and locating witnesses. Without a treaty, a requesting state has to rely on the goodwill of another state.