2 hours ago
The Bombay High Court on Thursday made it clear that businessman Vijay Mallya cannot seek relief while remaining outside India and evading domestic legal proceedings.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad said it would not entertain Mallya’s challenge to the constitutionality of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 unless he first returned to India and submitted to its jurisdiction.
“You have to come back. If you cannot come back, then we cannot hear this plea,” the Bench observed, underlining that a litigant declared a fugitive cannot simultaneously avoid the process of law and invoke the court’s equitable jurisdiction.
The matter concerns Mallya’s petition questioning both the validity of the 2018 law and the proceedings declaring him a fugitive economic offender.
The court referred to its earlier order dated December 23, by which Mallya had been directed to file an affidavit specifying when he intended to return from the United Kingdom. He had also been told that his constitutional challenge would not be considered unless he first subjected himself to the jurisdiction of Indian courts.
On Thursday, the Bench noted that no such affidavit had been filed.
“You are avoiding the process of the (Indian and UK) courts, so you cannot take advantage of the present petition challenging the Fugitive Economic Offenders (FEO) Act,” it remarked.
Appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that Mallya’s affidavit attempted to shift the focus of the proceedings by disputing banks’ recovery claims. He argued that the challenge to the 2018 law was mounted only after Mallya was declared a fugitive and when extradition proceedings in London were nearing conclusion.
Mehta contended that Mallya was free to return and press all his arguments before Indian courts, including his assertions regarding liability. However, he said, a person who refuses to submit to the country’s legal system cannot seek equitable relief from it.
“He can come and discuss everything that is mentioned in the affidavit — that I am ready to pay, not ready to pay, not liable to pay. But he cannot ‘not’ trust the law of this country and invoke equity jurisdiction,” he submitted.
The Bench asked the Solicitor General to place on record a detailed timeline of events for consideration at the next hearing.
Senior Advocate Amit Desai, appearing for Mallya, relied on a judicial precedent to argue that, given the nature of the statute under challenge, the petition could be heard even in his absence. The court, however, reiterated that its earlier direction requiring Mallya to indicate when he proposed to return remained uncomplied with.
While refraining from dismissing the petition at this stage, the Bench cautioned that continued non-compliance would compel it to pass appropriate orders.
“In fairness to you, we are not dismissing it; we are giving you another opportunity,” the court said, adjourning the matter to next week.
