Bombay HC to Vijay Mallya: No Hearing Unless You Submit to Jurisdiction

The Bombay High Court on Thursday delivered a firm message to fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya, stating that he must return to India before the court will hear his challenge to the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act (FEO Act) and his designation as a fugitive economic offender.

The High Court emphasised that a person who has evaded the jurisdiction of Indian courts cannot seek relief under domestic law while remaining abroad, underlining that physical submission to the process of law is a basic precondition for adjudication of his constitutional and statutory pleas.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Gautam Ankhad heard Mallya’s petitions challenging both the constitutional validity of the 2018 Fugitive Economic Offenders Act and the special court’s order that declared him a fugitive economic offender.

The Bench reiterated unequivocally that the plea would not be entertained unless Mallya first clarifies, via a sworn affidavit, whether and when he will return to India to subject himself to the jurisdiction of Indian courts.

“You have to come back… if you cannot come back, then we cannot hear this plea,” the Bench said, making clear that the petition cannot proceed in absentia while Mallya continues to reside overseas.

The matter has been adjourned for further hearing after Mallya files the compliance affidavit on his return plans.

The litigation stems from proceedings initiated by Indian authorities after Mallya left the country in 2016 amid multiple civil and criminal actions, including bank fraud, money laundering, and recovery proceedings involving large outstanding liabilities.

Among these is an order dated January, 2019 of the Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act that declared him a fugitive economic offender under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018; legislation designed to deter economic offenders from evading India’s legal processes by remaining outside its jurisdiction.

Mallya has filed two petitions before the High Court: one attacking the 2019 declaration, and another challenging the constitutional validity of key provisions of the FEO Act itself.

At the hearing, the Bench noted that Mallya had not complied with its earlier direction from 23.12.2025, to file an affidavit stating when he intends to return to India to pursue his pleas.

In response, Mallya’s counsel Sr. Adv. Amit Desai argued that there are precedents permitting hearing of certain challenges without the physical presence of the petitioner, particularly where constitutional issues are raised.

The court did not accept that submission as a basis for proceeding in absentia and maintained that it cannot grant equitable relief while the petitioner continues to avoid domestic court processes.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for central agencies including the Enforcement Directorate (ED), supported the court’s position, submitting that Mallya filed his petitions only after being declared a fugitive and at a time when his extradition proceedings in London were reaching an advanced stage. He further argued that a person cannot seek benefit from Indian law while deliberately avoiding Indian jurisdiction; if Mallya is genuinely willing to address his liabilities and challenges, he must first come to India and submit to Indian courts before raising constitutional or statutory objections to the law.

The High Court has set the next hearing date after expecting compliance with its directive on the return affidavit.

It remains to be seen whether Mallya chooses to comply by confirming his return plans or seeks to formalise his position in writing that he will not return, a step that the court indicated would allow it to consider its next course of action on the maintainability and merits of his petitions.

Case Title: Vijay Mallya v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench: Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad

Date of Order: 12.02.2026

Inputs from FPJ