Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has asked businessman Vijay Mallya to clearly state whether he is prepared to return to India before it considers hearing his petitions. The court indicated that his physical presence, or at least a firm commitment to return, is necessary for further proceedings.
Mallya Cites UK Restrictions
Through his submissions, Mallya informed the court that ongoing legal proceedings in the United Kingdom have placed travel restrictions on him. He stated that court orders in the UK currently prevent him from leaving the country, making it difficult to comply with the High Court’s expectations.
High Court’s Firm Position
A bench led by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Gautam Ankhad made it clear that the court cannot proceed unless Mallya clarifies his stand. The judges observed that if he is unable or unwilling to return, the court may not be in a position to entertain his pleas. However, they also noted that he is being given a fair opportunity to present his case. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing later this month.
Challenge to Fugitive Status
Vijay Mallya has filed petitions challenging the order that declared him a fugitive economic offender under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act. He has also questioned the constitutional validity of the law itself. Under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, Vijay Mallya’s properties in India—including shares, bank accounts and high-value assets—have been attached and confiscated by enforcement agencies, allowing authorities to recover dues without waiting for his physical return to face trial.
Cases Pending in India
The 70-year-old businessman has been living in the UK since 2016 and faces multiple cases in India related to alleged financial irregularities and money laundering. The High Court observed that unless he clearly outlines his intention regarding returning to India, it may have to formally record that he is not cooperating with the judicial process.
The bench has directed Mallya to submit a sworn affidavit clarifying his position before the next hearing, stressing that transparency on this issue is essential before the court can move forward.
