'Barred by UK Courts from Leaving, Can't Specify Return Timeline to India': Vijay Mallya Tells Bombay HC

Mumbai: Fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya informed the Bombay High Court on Wednesday that he is unable to specify a timeline for his return to India, citing legal restrictions imposed by courts in the United Kingdom.

In a statement submitted through his counsel, Senior Advocate Amit Desai, Mallya stated that he is prohibited from leaving or attempting to leave England and Wales, and is not allowed to apply for or possess any international travel document. He added that his Indian passport was revoked by the government in 2016, further preventing travel.

The submission came during the hearing of Mallya's petitions--one challenging his declaration as a fugitive economic offender and another questioning the constitutional validity of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 (FEO Act). 

Mallya, 70, has been residing in the UK since March 2016 and faces multiple cases in India related to fraud, money laundering, and defaulting on loans amounting to thousands of crores.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad had previously made it clear that the court would not entertain the pleas unless Mallya returns to India and submits to its jurisdiction. The bench reiterated that a fugitive cannot seek relief while remaining beyond the reach of Indian law, stating, “You have to come back… if you cannot come back then we cannot hear this plea.”

The court observed that Mallya had been given opportunities to clarify his position and warned that continued absence could lead to recording that he is avoiding the judicial process. However, in fairness, the bench did not dismiss the petitions outright and granted him another chance.

The bench directed Mallya to file an affidavit clearly stating his stance on returning to India. It also asked the Central government to file its reply to Mallya's statement within a week. The matter has been adjourned to March 11, 2026, for further hearing.

Mallya's counsel argued that physical presence in India is not required for the court to adjudicate on the constitutional challenge to the FEO Act. However, the bench maintained its precondition for hearing the matter.

Also Read: French President Macron Announces Streamlined Visa Process, Courses to be Taught in English for Indian Students