Extradition stands for the process of turning over a fugitive by one nation to another for prosecution and punishment, if found guilty. Differences in the idea of crimes across nations has led to a question whether this difference have resulted in allowing fugitives to misuse it and evade prosecution by absconding to the nation where a particular offence is not a crime and where dual criminality is recognized? Through this paper it is being tried to explore how different jurisdictions reconcile conflicts between national interests and international obligations; how sovereign nations are balancing between their sovereignty and pursuit of global justice. It is also being tried to assess the human rights implications of extradition, including risks of unfair trial or inhumane treatment. It is seen that in spite of many frameworks and treaties present for extradition of a fugitive still inconsistencies in enforcement and interpretation of the treaties undermines its effectiveness. As seen in Bhopal gas tragedy case, the attempt of extradition of Warren Anderson, Chairman and CEO of Union Carbide Corporation, failed due to difference in interpretation of treaties resulting in undermining of accountability and denial of justice to the victims. The objective of this paper is to do a doctrinal and comparative research to suggest reforms that can enhance uniformity, safeguard human rights, and strengthen cooperative mechanisms, thereby contributing to both academic discourse and policy development.