Vijay Mallya Tells Bombay High Court He Cannot Return To India As English Courts Have Barred Him From Leaving; Court Directs Him To File Affidavit
Evan V
Former Kingfisher group promoter Vijay Mallya on Wednesday informed the Bombay High Court that he is presently unable to give a definite timeline for returning to India, contending that orders passed by courts in England restrain him from leaving that jurisdiction.
The submission was made in the context of Mallya’s pending challenge to the constitutional validity of the Fugitive Economic Offenders (FEO) Act. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad had earlier indicated—by an order dated December 22, 2025—that it would not proceed to hear the challenge unless Mallya returns to India. The Bench had subsequently granted him an additional opportunity to clarify whether he intended to return.
In pursuance of the Court’s direction, Senior Advocate Amit Desai placed a “statement” before the Bench, stating that it was based on instructions conveyed by Mallya to his attorney. Desai read out the submission: "Pursuant to orders passed by courts in England, he cannot leave England... At present, he is unable to precisely state when he will return to India... "
Desai further argued that the Court could not insist on Mallya’s personal presence as a precondition for adjudicating the writ petition, citing instances in which petitions have been heard without the petitioner being physically present. He added: "If he returns then he won't be a Fugitive anymore and then both the petitions would be infructuous milords,"
The Bench, however, expressed reservations that the statement did not set out concrete particulars explaining the impediment to Mallya’s return, including whether the English court orders had been challenged or if any modification/permission to travel had been sought. The Chief Justice observed: "But then what is your apprehensions? 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?"
Desai responded by reiterating that the English court orders, as they presently stand, prohibit Mallya from leaving England.
The Union of India opposed Mallya’s stand. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, assisted by Additional Solicitors General S.V. Raju and Anil Singh (along with counsel), submitted that: "India has a robust and vibrant legal system which is run by the rule of law", and urged that Mallya must submit to the jurisdiction of Indian courts rather than seek to litigate from abroad.
Noting that the statement was conveyed through counsel based on instructions to an attorney, the Bench directed Mallya’s legal team to place the same material on record by way of a proper affidavit, so that the Union could file its response.
The matter has been adjourned to March 11.
