Journalism of Courage
Premium

Declaring me fugitive offender is like giving ‘economic death penalty’: Mallya tells HC

"I have assets to pay off these debts but the government won't allow the use of these assets to clear the debts," said Mallya.

Vijay Mallya loses extradition appeal — what are his options?Asked about heading back to India, he noted: “I should be where my family is, where my interests are. (File/AP)
Advertisement

Beleaguered liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya Wednesday told the Bombay High Court that by declaring him a fugitive economic offender and allowing attachment of his assets, a special court had awarded him an “economic death penalty”.

Appearing before the bench of justices Ranjit More and Bharati Dangre, Mallya made the statement through his counsel Amit Desai during arguments on his plea challenging several provisions of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act that came into existence in August last year.

“My debts and the interest on such debts are mounting. I have assets to pay off these debts but the government won’t allow the use of these assets to clear the debts. I have no control over my properties. This is an economic death penalty that has been awarded to me,” Mallya said. Desai urged the court to pass an injunction against the proceedings related to confiscation of his assets across the country.

However, the bench refused to grant any interim relief on the petition. A special court here had in January declared Mallya a fugitive economic offender (FEO) under provisions of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act.

Later, Mallya approached the high court, challenging the provisions of the act that permit, among other things, confiscation of assets and placing them under the control of the Union government. He also filed another petition challenging the special court order that declared him an FEO which was being heard by another division bench of the high court.

Mallya’s counsel argued that the FEO Act was “draconian” as it allowed the Centre to confiscate everything, irrespective of whether a property was bought from the proceeds of a crime or not. Mallya’s plea was opposed by the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) counsel D P Singh, who argued that the Act was not draconian at all.

“This act is not draconian. In fact, this act prohibits prosecuting agencies from acting on their own. For everything, including attachment of properties, we are supposed to get a court order that is passed only after hearing all sides,” Singh said.

Story continues below this ad

“This act is meant for Mallya-like people only. It is not an ordinary legislation. The act has been constituted to bring back defaulters who have defaulted amounts of Rs 100 crore and above,” the counsel said.

The court, too, noted that the legislation was a sound one and not draconian. “We understand this legislation is a little harsh. But that is because it deals with draconian situations,” the bench said.

It, however, issued a notice to the attorney general to respond to Mallya’s plea challenging the act.

(With PTI inputs)

From the homepage

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Tags:
Edition
Install the Express App for
a better experience
Featured
Trending Topics
News
Multimedia
Follow Us
Express ExplainedHow will the US government shutdown impact immigrants and visa holders?
X