Vijay Mallya informed the Bombay High Court that he was unable to specify a date for his return to India, stating that courts in England had barred him from leaving the United Kingdom. The submission was made before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad. The bench had earlier made it clear that Mallya’s challenge to the constitutional validity of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act would not be entertained unless he returned to India and submitted to the jurisdiction of Indian courts. On a previous occasion, the court had granted him an opportunity to clarify whether he intended to return and to provide a timeline for doing so.
In response, Mallya furnished a statement through his senior advocate Amit Desai, which was stated to be based on instructions given by Mallya to his Attorney. The statement referred to orders passed by English courts that allegedly prevented him from leaving England. On that basis, he asserted that he was unable to provide a definite date for his return to India. Desai argued that the High Court could not insist on Mallya’s personal physical presence in India for the hearing of his petition challenging the FEO Act. He relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court of India where petitions had been heard in the absence of the petitioners. It was also submitted that if Mallya were to return to India, his status as a fugitive would cease, rendering both petitions before the High Court infructuous.
The Division Bench, however, expressed dissatisfaction with the statement, noting that it did not clearly specify the exact reasons preventing Mallya from returning to India or whether he had challenged the orders of the English courts that purportedly barred him from leaving. Chief Justice Chandrashekhar questioned whether the reliance on the English court orders was being used merely as an excuse and asked why those orders had not been challenged if they were indeed preventing his return. In response, Desai reiterated that the English court orders clearly barred Mallya from departing from their jurisdiction.
During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, along with Additional Solicitor Generals SV Raju and Anil Singh, and advocate Dhirendra Singh, opposed Mallya’s submissions. They contended that India has a robust legal system governed by the rule of law and asserted that Mallya must place his trust in the Indian judicial process and submit to its jurisdiction. The court was informed that the statement presented through Desai had been based on instructions given to an Attorney, and the bench directed that a proper affidavit be filed reproducing the contents of the statement so that the Union of India could file its reply.
The court’s insistence on an affidavit underscored its concern that the submissions made needed to be formally placed on record in an appropriate manner. The bench observed that the existing statement lacked sufficient clarity regarding the restrictions imposed by the English courts and whether any legal steps had been taken to challenge those restrictions. The judges emphasized that without Mallya’s return to India and submission to the court’s jurisdiction, it would be difficult to proceed with his challenge to the FEO Act.
The matter was adjourned to enable the filing of the affidavit and to allow the Union of India to respond to the claims made regarding the English court orders. The bench scheduled the next hearing for March 11, providing Mallya with an opportunity to comply with the court’s directions. The ongoing proceedings reflect the court’s consistent position that Mallya’s presence in India is a prerequisite for the adjudication of his challenge to the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act and related proceedings declaring him a fugitive economic offender.
Throughout the hearing, the central issue remained whether Mallya could pursue his legal challenge while remaining outside India and citing foreign court restrictions as the reason for his absence. The court’s queries indicated skepticism regarding the adequacy of the explanation offered and highlighted its expectation that a litigant seeking relief from an Indian court must ordinarily submit to its jurisdiction. The filing of a sworn affidavit was intended to formally place Mallya’s assertions before the court and to enable a structured response from the Union of India.
The proceedings thus centered on the interplay between Mallya’s claimed inability to leave England due to orders of English courts and the Bombay High Court’s requirement that he return to India to maintain his challenge. With the matter adjourned and directions issued for further filings, the case remains pending before the Division Bench, which has reiterated its position that the validity of hearing Mallya’s petition is contingent upon his submission to Indian jurisdiction.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.