Mumbai: Fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya, facing multiple fraud and money laundering cases, informed the Bombay High Court that he cannot specify when he will return to India because he is legally barred from leaving the United Kingdom and no longer holds a valid Indian passport.
The submission was made on Wednesday through his senior counsel Amit Desai in response to the court’s earlier direction asking him to clarify whether he intends to return to India. The high court had indicated last week that it would not proceed with hearing his petitions unless he comes back to the country.
Statement submitted before division bench
The matter came up before a division bench headed by Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad, which had earlier sought a clear stand from Mallya regarding his return.
In the written statement read out in court, Mallya said his passport was revoked by the Government of India in 2016 and that he is also bound by judicial orders passed by courts in England and Wales that restrict his travel outside that jurisdiction.
According to the submission, he is not permitted to leave or attempt to leave England and Wales, nor can he apply for or possess any international travel document. Because of these restrictions, he said, it is not possible for him to provide a definite timeline for returning to India.
Challenge to fugitive tag and law under question
Mallya has filed two petitions before the high court. One challenges the order declaring him a fugitive economic offender, while the other questions the constitutional validity of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act.
He was declared a fugitive economic offender in January 2019 by a special court dealing with cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The designation enables authorities to confiscate properties of individuals who evade Indian courts by remaining abroad while facing serious financial crime charges.
The businessman, who has been in the United Kingdom since 2016, is accused of defaulting on bank loans amounting to several thousand crore rupees and is also facing money laundering proceedings initiated by central agencies.
Counsel argues presence not required for hearing
During arguments, Desai contended that Mallya’s physical presence in India is not necessary for the high court to examine his legal challenges. He argued that the petitions raise important legal and constitutional questions that can be decided independently of his location.
He further submitted that if Mallya were to appear before the concerned court in India, the very basis of the fugitive economic offender proceedings would change. Under the statute, once an accused appears before the designated court, certain consequences and attached orders linked to fugitive status may not continue in the same manner.
Therefore, he argued, insisting on his prior return would effectively defeat the purpose of the petitions currently under consideration.
Court seeks Union government reply
After taking the statement on record, the bench directed the Union government to file its reply to Mallya’s submission. The court then adjourned the matter and scheduled the next hearing for next month.
The judges indicated that the maintainability of his petitions and the condition regarding his return to India would be examined after considering the government’s response.
Background of the case
Mallya, once a high-profile liquor and airline entrepreneur, left India in March 2016 amid mounting financial and legal troubles. His passport was subsequently revoked the same year. Since then, Indian authorities have pursued legal action against him in multiple forums, including extradition proceedings in the UK and asset recovery actions in India.
His declaration as a fugitive economic offender marked one of the earliest high-profile uses of the 2018 law designed to deter large-scale financial offenders from evading Indian jurisdiction.
Conclusion
With Mallya citing passport revocation and UK court travel restrictions as barriers to his return, the high court must now decide whether his legal challenges can proceed in his absence. The Union government’s reply and the court’s ruling next month are likely to shape the future course of the long-running case.