On 18th February, Wednesday, fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya informed the Bombay High Court that he is unable to give a clear date for his return to India. He explained that this is because of ongoing restrictions imposed by courts in the United Kingdom. According to him, his passport has already been revoked, and under the existing court orders, he is not allowed to leave England or Wales.

However, the Bombay High Court did not readily accept this reasoning. The court described his explanation as an “excuse,” signaling its dissatisfaction with the justification offered for his continued absence from India.

Mallya’s submissions were presented before a bench led by Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad. He appeared through his lawyer, Amit Desai. The statement was filed in response to an earlier direction from the High Court. The bench had asked Mallya to clearly state whether he intended to return to India to face trial while at the same time challenging the constitutionality of the Fugitive Economic Offenders (FEO) Act and the order declaring him a fugitive economic offender.

The court had already made its position clear in earlier proceedings. It had said firmly that it would not examine the arguments on the merits of the challenge to the FEO Act unless Mallya was physically present in India. The judges conveyed that his presence in the country was a necessary condition before they could proceed further with the case.

During the hearing, Amit Desai argued that the petition should not depend on Mallya’s physical appearance in India. He referred to two Supreme Court judgments and claimed that in those cases, petitions were heard even when the petitioners were not personally present. In support of his client’s position, Desai stated, “Pursuant to orders passed by the Courts in England, the petitioner is not permitted to leave or attempt to leave England and Wales or apply for or be in possession of any international travel document. In any event, the petitioner is unable to precisely state when he will return to India.”

Desai also made another important argument. He submitted that if Mallya were to return to India, he would no longer fall within the category of a fugitive under the law. He explained, “If he were to appear in India, then all these proceedings would be rendered irrelevant as the statute says that once the offender appears in the concerned court of law, then all these orders would be set aside.”

Despite these submissions, the bench raised sharp questions. Chief Justice Chandrashekhar asked whether Mallya was shielding himself behind foreign court orders instead of directly addressing the issue. He observed that while reliance was being placed on the decisions of the courts in England, there was no clarity on whether those orders had been challenged. The judge asked pointedly, “But then what is your apprehension? You merely rely on orders of the Courts in England, but you haven’t spelt out if you have challenged those orders or not. Are you just taking these orders as an excuse?”

At the same time, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the central government, strongly opposed Mallya’s plea. He argued that the businessman should place trust in India’s legal framework and submit to its authority. In his submission before the court, he said, “India has a robust and vibrant legal system which is run by the rule of law,” and urged the court to ensure that Mallya complies with its jurisdiction.

Mehta further stressed that Mallya had approached the High Court under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. He pointed out that such jurisdiction is discretionary and based on principles of fairness and equity. According to him, such relief cannot be extended to someone who is not complying with the law. He stated clearly, “It is a settled position in law of the land that a person not complying with the law cannot be entrusted with the prerogative writ of this court.”

The 70-year-old former liquor baron is facing serious allegations. Apart from the charges of money laundering, he is accused of repeatedly failing to repay loans amounting to several thousand crores. In January 2019, a special court dealing with cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) declared him a Fugitive Economic Offender. Earlier, in March 2016, Mallya had left India and relocated to the United Kingdom.

During the proceedings, the High Court also noted a procedural issue. The declaration placed before it was not supported by a personal affidavit from Mallya himself. Instead, it was based on instructions provided to his lawyer. The bench directed that a proper sworn affidavit be filed, along with a copy of the statement, so that the central government could respond formally.

The matter has now been adjourned and is scheduled to be taken up again on 11th March.