The Bombay High Court on Thursday firmly reiterated that it will not entertain fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya’s constitutional challenge to the Fugitive Economic Offenders (FEO) Act unless he returns to India.
A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad said it was giving Mallya “one more opportunity” to clarify, through an affidavit, whether he intended to come back. The court warned that if he continues to remain abroad, it may have to record that he is “avoiding the process of the court.”
“You (Mallya) have to come back… If you cannot come back, then we cannot hear this plea,” the bench told Mallya’s counsel.
Mallya, 70, who is currently based in the UK and has been resisting extradition since 2016, has filed two petitions before the High Court — one challenging the declaration of him as a fugitive economic offender and another questioning the constitutional validity of the FEO Act, enacted in 2018.
He was declared a fugitive economic offender in January 2019 by a special court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), following proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Posting the matter for further hearing on February 18, the bench noted that in all fairness it was not dismissing the petition but said Mallya must “come clean” about his intentions.
“We may have to record that you are avoiding the process of the court. You cannot take benefit of the proceedings,” the Chief Justice said.
The court had earlier, in December 2025, asked Mallya to clarify his willingness to return, observing that it would hear the petitions only if he came back to face the legal process.
On Thursday, it directed Mallya to file an affidavit specifically stating whether or not he intends to return to India.
Senior advocate Amit Desai, appearing for Mallya, cited judicial precedents and submitted that constitutional petitions can be heard without the petitioner’s physical presence. He also pointed out that Mallya’s properties in India had already been attached by authorities.
However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union of India, strongly opposed the plea, arguing:
“He (Mallya) cannot not trust the law of the country. He must come to India first and then we will see whether he is liable or not.”
Mehta further said that Mallya had challenged the FEO Act provisions only after being declared a fugitive and only when extradition proceedings in London reached their final stages.
He also referred to Mallya’s affidavit, where he reportedly claimed that the banks were wrong to seek recovery from him.
Mallya is accused of defaulting on loans worth over ₹9,000 crore taken by his defunct Kingfisher Airlines and is facing charges of fraud and money laundering in multiple cases in India. He left the country in March 2016 and has remained in the UK ever since, despite extradition proceedings initiated by Indian authorities.
