UK Travel Ban Imposed, Passport Revoked: Vijay Mallya Tells Bombay High Court He Has No Timeline to Return to India

Wanted businessman Vijay Mallya told the Bombay High Court on Wednesday that he is unable to provide a definite timeframe for his return to India due to restrictions imposed by courts in the United Kingdom. According to his submission, his passport has been revoked and he is prohibited from leaving England and Wales under existing UK court orders.

Mallya’s statement was presented before a bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Gautam Ankhad through his senior counsel Amit Desai. The affidavit was filed in response to the High Court’s earlier direction asking Mallya to clarify whether he intended to return to India to face trial while simultaneously challenging legal proceedings against him.

Declared a Fugitive Economic Offender

Mallya departed India in March 2016 amid mounting financial scrutiny. He is accused of defaulting on loans amounting to several thousand crores borrowed from Indian banks. In January 2019, a special court dealing with cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) declared him a Fugitive Economic Offender (FEO) under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act.

Following that declaration, extradition proceedings were initiated against him in the United Kingdom. Indian authorities have been pursuing his return through legal channels since then.

In his latest statement before the High Court, Mallya said that legal restrictions imposed by English courts prevent him from traveling. “The petitioner is not permitted to apply for or hold any Travel Documents, nor is he allowed to leave or attempt to leave England and Wales,” the affidavit stated.

He further added that, in light of these constraints, he cannot specify with certainty when he might return to India.

Challenge to Fugitive Economic Offenders Act

Mallya has filed petitions challenging both the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act and the special court’s order declaring him a fugitive economic offender. His counsel, Amit Desai, argued that the Bombay High Court can adjudicate these petitions without requiring Mallya’s physical presence in India.

Desai submitted that the legal questions raised pertain to the interpretation and validity of statutory provisions, which can be examined independently of the petitioner’s physical location.

Centre Opposes Plea

Representing the Central government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta strongly opposed Mallya’s plea. Mehta argued that Mallya is invoking the High Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction – a discretionary and equitable power – despite allegedly evading Indian law.

“It is a well-established legal principle that an individual who violates the law cannot be granted the prerogative writ of this Court,” Mehta contended during the hearing, emphasizing that discretionary relief should not be extended to someone declared a fugitive.

The Centre maintained that Mallya’s conduct disentitles him from seeking equitable remedies from Indian courts while remaining outside the country.

Next Hearing Scheduled

After hearing arguments from both sides, the bench posted the matter for further hearing next month. The court directed the Centre to file its response to Mallya’s affidavit before the next date of proceedings.

The case continues to draw national attention, given its implications for financial accountability, extradition law, and the enforcement of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act. As legal proceedings unfold in both India and the United Kingdom, Mallya’s return remains uncertain – constrained, as he claims, by judicial orders abroad and unresolved litigation at home.