The Bombay High Court on Thursday said that fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya cannot avoid court processes (in the UK and India) by taking advantage of the pendency of the plea challenging provisions of the Fugitive Economic Offender (FEO) Act.
The high court reiterated that Mallya has to return to India or could even file an affidavit saying “I won’t come back”, so that the court can pass appropriate orders.
A bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A Ankhad was hearing a writ plea by Mallya challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of the FEO Act. His challenge to a special court’s January 2019 order declaring him a fugitive economic offender is also pending before the high court.
On December 23, 2025, the bench asked Mallya to state when he intended to come back to India.
However, on Thursday, the bench noted that Mallya had not filed an appropriate compliance affidavit yet.
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, along with Additional Solicitor-General Anil Singh, appearing for central agencies including the Enforcement Directorate (ED), submitted that Mallya claimed in his affidavit that banks were wrong to demand money from him and he had “given a colour” that the proceedings against him were merely for recovery, which was not the case.
“After being a fugitive and contesting our extradition proceedings in London, he can come and can discuss everything what he has mentioned in the affidavit (about recovery) and whether he is ready and liable to pay,” Mehta argued, adding that Mallya cannot mistrust the law and invoke the high court’s equity jurisdiction.
Story continues below this ad
Equity jurisdiction refers to the power to provide remedies based on principles of fairness, justice, and natural law, beyond the strict application of common law.
When the high court queried if Mallya had availed of any protection from Indian courts, his lawyer responded in the negative.
“You have to come back. If you want to prosecute this (writ petition), then you have to come back… We have passed certain orders,” Chief Justice Chandrashekhar orally remarked.
Timing of the petition is telling: Tushar Mehta
Mehta said that extradition proceedings in the UK were “at the fag end” and added, “Possibly, this is my assumption, that having realised that he will be extradited, he (Mallya) has challenged the proceedings here. He left (India) many years back. The choice of time to file this petition is also telling.”
Story continues below this ad
The court asked the parties to give a list of dates in the matter so that it could pass a detailed order during the next hearing. “We will say that you (Mallya) were avoiding the process of the court. So you should not take benefit of pendency of these petitions. We will observe this. In fairness to you, we are not dismissing it. We’ll give you one more opportunity,” Chief Justice Chandrashekhar indicated.
Senior advocate Amit Desai, representing Mallya, argued there was a past judgment to show that he could be heard in the matter challenging the validity of the FEO without coming to India.
“We never thought that you will not file a compliance affidavit (to indicate when he intended to come back to India). So what was the purpose of that order (December 23). We will pass order on non-compliance,” Chief Justice Chandrashekhar said and posted the hearing to next week.
Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions.
Expertise & Authority
Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage.
Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in:
Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include:
Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes).
Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty).
Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict.
Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability.
Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges.
Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More
