NEW DELHI: The drama around Vijay Mallya just got louder, and this time, the message from the Bombay High Court was crystal clear. If he wants relief from an Indian court, he must first step back onto Indian soil.
On Thursday (Feb 12), the High Court openly questioned why Mallya, 70, who is staying in the United Kingdom and is a ‘fugitive’, expects the court to entertain his plea while avoiding Indian authorities.
“You have to come back. If you cannot come back, then we cannot hear this plea,” the bench said.
Vijay Vittal Mallya is an Indian businessman and a former politician. He is the former chairman of United Spirits, the largest spirits company in India, and continues to serve as chairman of United Breweries Group.
What is Vijay Mallya challenging?
Mallya has filed a petition challenging the validity of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 (FEO Act). He is also questioning the proceedings that declared him a fugitive economic offender under this law.
The FEO Act allows authorities to confiscate properties of individuals who avoid returning to India to face criminal charges involving significant financial fraud.
Mallya is currently in the UK, where India has been pursuing extradition proceedings against him.
December order ignored?
The bench, led by Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad, reminded Mallya’s legal team that it had already passed an order on Dec 23.
In that earlier order, the Court had directed Mallya to file an affidavit clearly stating when he intends to return to India.
The judges had also made it clear that they would not hear his challenge to the constitutional validity (vires) of the FEO Act unless he first submitted to the court’s jurisdiction.
However, when the matter was taken up this week, the Court noted that Mallya had not filed the required affidavit about his return.
“You are avoiding the process of the (Indian and UK) court, so you cannot take advantage of the present petition,” the bench observed.
Enforcement Directorate’s stand
Appearing for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Solicitor General Tushar Mehta strongly opposed Mallya’s plea.
Mehta told the Court that Mallya had filed an affidavit claiming that banks were wrong to demand money from him. According to Mehta, Mallya was trying to shift the focus of the case into recovery proceedings.
He further argued that Mallya challenged the 2018 Act only after the court had already declared him a fugitive and at a time when India was nearing the end of extradition proceedings in London.
Mehta’s point was simple: Mallya is free to return to India and argue his case fully, whether he wants to say he is ready to pay, not ready to pay, or not liable at all. But he cannot reject the legal system and still seek fairness from it.
“He cannot ‘not’ trust the law of this country and invoke equity jurisdiction,” Mehta said in court.
The bench asked the Solicitor General to submit detailed timelines and records.
Defence tries to push back
Senior Advocate Amit Desai, representing Mallya, attempted to argue that given the nature of the statute, Mallya could have a hearing even without physically returning to India. He relied on a previous judgment to support this claim.
But the bench did not look convinced.
The judges reminded Desai that there is already a standing order requiring Mallya to clearly state when he plans to return. Since that direction has not been complied with, the Court said it may have to pass orders regarding non-compliance if the situation continues.
One more chance?
Despite the tough remarks, the Court stopped short of dismissing the petition outright.
“In fairness to you, we are not dismissing it; we are giving you another opportunity,” the bench told Mallya’s counsel.
The matter has now been adjourned and will be heard again next week.
For now, the ball is firmly in Vijay Mallya’s court. The High Court’s stand is clear; no return, no hearing. - The Statesman/ANN
