Mallya Challenges Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, Hearing Adjourned to March 11

This comes just days after the High Court issued a firm message stating that it would not hear Mallya's petition challenging the provisions of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act until he returned to its jurisdiction. The court directed him to clarify whether he intended to return if he sought relief.

Mallya's lawyer argued that the English court orders restrict his ability to leave that country, preventing him from setting a timeline for his travel to India.

However, the bench questioned the basis of Mallya's stand, noting that he had only relied on orders from English courts, without clarifying whether he had challenged those orders or sought permission to travel.

The bench asked Desai to file a complete affidavit stating the exact nature of the restrictions imposed by the UK courts, whether those orders had been challenged, and his correct position on his return. Granting him three weeks to file the affidavit, the High Court adjourned the matter until March 11.

The Bombay High Court has repeatedly emphasized that a litigant declared a fugitive cannot seek valid relief while remaining beyond the reach of Indian law. The court emphasized that Mallya cannot escape court action by challenging the proceedings against him.

Therefore, the bench has made his physical return, or at least a clear promise to do so, a condition for hearing his petition against the 2018 law.

Mallya's current petition in the Bombay High Court challenges the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act and the action declaring him a fugitive.