Unable to give precise date for return to India, barred by UK courts from leaving England: Vijay Mallya to Bombay HC
The bench asked Vijay Mallya's lawyer to submit his statement in the form of an affidavit, observing that, despite sufficient time, he could not do so.
Fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya on Wednesday informed the Bombay High Court that he was unable to specify when he would return to India, citing ongoing proceedings in the UK to argue that he is barred from leaving, or attempting to leave, England or Wales.
This was in response to the high court’s remark that Mallya has to come back to Indiato pursue proceedings in his writ plea challenging the validity of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act of 2018 (FEO Act).
During the last hearing, the Bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A Ankhad reiterated that Mallya must return or file an affidavit stating “I won’t come back,” so the court can pass appropriate orders.
On Wednesday in response, Mallya said he “was not permitted to leave or attempt to leave England and Wales or apply for or to be in possession of any international travel document.”
Senior Advocate Amit Desai, appearing for Mallya, read out his statement made on instruction from his attorney and added, “His (Indian) passport was revoked many years ago in 2016, so he does not have a travel document. In any event, the petitioner is unable to precisely state when he will return to India,” said Desai.
Desai also claimed that Mallya’s presence in India was not required for the court to hear his writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the FEO Act. He added that his client has also filed an appeal challenging the invocation of the FEO Act against him in 2019.
“If the petitioner were to appear (in India), then all these proceedings are irrelevant. Because the section of the statute says that if you appear in the country, then all these orders will be set aside. He will be rendered remedy-less. If petitioner appears (in India) then nothing survives so far as FEO is concerned. Then his remedy in appeal and writ also goes as he will no longer be a fugitive offender,” Desi argued.
What the Centre said
Story continues below this ad
On the other hand, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, along with Additional Solicitor-Generals (ASGs) S V Raju and Anil Singh, appearing for central agencies, including the Enforcement Directorate (ED), argued, “If he (Mallya) comes back, India has a very vibrant, neutral, independent judiciary. We are governed by the rule of law, governed by constitutional principles, and he would get all constitutional and statutory protections. ”
Mehta submitted a response on behalf of the Centre, which claimed that Mallya’s earlier affidavit, which enumerated dues to the government and how the government had recovered most of them from his assets in India, was “irrelevant” to the present dispute, as the question was whether he would return to India.
Mehta said the extradition proceedings initiated by the Centre are at a “very, very advanced stage,” and Mallya could misuse his affidavit, along with the pending HC proceedings, to “thwart” extradition hearings before the UK Courts. He added that if Mallya wished to come back to India, “a travel document can be given” to him by the government.
“These petitions have been pending since 2019… We do not want to prejudice you… But you have not taken sincere efforts (for early disposal of the petitions),” CJ Chandrashekhar orally remarked.
Story continues below this ad
The bench reiterated that Mallya could take advantage of the present petition in the UK extradition proceedings. The bench asked Mallya’s lawyer to submit his statement in the form of an affidavit, observing that, despite sufficient time, he could not do so.
It also asked the Centre to file its response thereafter and posted further hearing to March 11.
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
