Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has once again made it clear that it will not proceed with Vijay Mallya’s legal challenge against the Fugitive Economic Offenders (FEO) Act unless he returns to India.
During the latest hearing, a division bench led by Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar stated that the court is granting the businessman a final opportunity to clarify whether he is willing to come back and face legal proceedings. The bench indicated that without his return, the court would be reluctant to entertain his petitions.
Mallya, who has been residing in the United Kingdom since 2016, was declared a Fugitive Economic Offender in 2019 by a special court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). He faces allegations of large-scale loan defaults and money laundering. Investigative agencies in India have attached several of his properties as part of recovery proceedings.
Before the High Court, Mallya has filed two separate petitions — one challenging the order that declared him a fugitive economic offender, and another questioning the constitutional validity of the FEO Act enacted in 2018.
The bench observed that a person declared a fugitive cannot seek relief from Indian courts while remaining outside the country. It told his legal team that if he wishes to pursue his challenge, he must first clarify his intention to return. The court has directed that an affidavit be filed stating his position clearly and scheduled the matter for further hearing on February 18.
In earlier proceedings as well, the High Court had conveyed that physical return to India would be a key factor in deciding whether his plea could be heard.
Representing the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that Mallya had approached the court only after being declared a fugitive and that he must first submit himself to Indian jurisdiction. He also informed the court that extradition proceedings in the United Kingdom were at an advanced stage.
On the other hand, senior advocate Amit Desai, appearing for Mallya, contended that there are judicial precedents where courts have heard petitions even when the petitioner was not physically present in the country.
