Travel from UK barred, passport revoked: Mallya tells HC he cannot give a fixed India return timeline
Mallya, who left India in March 2016, faces allegations of defaulting on multiple loan repayments running into several thousand crore
- Feb 19, 2026,
- Updated Feb 19, 2026 8:31 AM IST
Vijay Mallya has told the Bombay High Court he cannot specify when, or if, he will return to India, citing travel restrictions imposed by courts in the United Kingdom.
Appearing through senior counsel Amit Desai, the fugitive businessman informed a bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad that his passport has been revoked and he is barred from leaving England and Wales.
The submission came in response to the court’s earlier direction asking him to clarify whether he intended to return to face trial while challenging his designation as a fugitive economic offender and the constitutional validity of the Fugitive Economic Offenders (FEO) Act.
Mallya, who left India in March 2016, faces allegations of defaulting on multiple loan repayments running into several thousand crores. In January 2019, a special court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) declared him a Fugitive Economic Offender, triggering proceedings under the FEO Act and the initiation of extradition action.
In his written statement before the High Court, Mallya pointed to binding UK court orders that restrict his movement.
“Pursuant to orders passed by the Courts in England, the petitioner is not permitted to leave or attempt to leave England and Wales or apply for or be in possession of any international travel document. In any event, the Petitioner is unable to precisely state when he will return to India,” the statement said.
Desai argued that Mallya’s physical presence in India was not required for the High Court to hear his petitions against the fugitive tag and the provisions of the FEO Act.
The Centre opposed the plea. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that Mallya had approached the High Court under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, which is discretionary and equitable in nature. He contended that someone who does not comply with the law cannot seek such relief.
“It is settled position in law of the land that a person not complying with law cannot be entrusted with the prerogative writ of this Court,” Mehta submitted.
After hearing both sides, the bench directed the Centre to file its reply to Mallya’s statement and scheduled the matter for further hearing next month.
(With inputs from PTI)
Vijay Mallya has told the Bombay High Court he cannot specify when, or if, he will return to India, citing travel restrictions imposed by courts in the United Kingdom.
Appearing through senior counsel Amit Desai, the fugitive businessman informed a bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad that his passport has been revoked and he is barred from leaving England and Wales.
The submission came in response to the court’s earlier direction asking him to clarify whether he intended to return to face trial while challenging his designation as a fugitive economic offender and the constitutional validity of the Fugitive Economic Offenders (FEO) Act.
Mallya, who left India in March 2016, faces allegations of defaulting on multiple loan repayments running into several thousand crores. In January 2019, a special court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) declared him a Fugitive Economic Offender, triggering proceedings under the FEO Act and the initiation of extradition action.
In his written statement before the High Court, Mallya pointed to binding UK court orders that restrict his movement.
“Pursuant to orders passed by the Courts in England, the petitioner is not permitted to leave or attempt to leave England and Wales or apply for or be in possession of any international travel document. In any event, the Petitioner is unable to precisely state when he will return to India,” the statement said.
Desai argued that Mallya’s physical presence in India was not required for the High Court to hear his petitions against the fugitive tag and the provisions of the FEO Act.
The Centre opposed the plea. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that Mallya had approached the High Court under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, which is discretionary and equitable in nature. He contended that someone who does not comply with the law cannot seek such relief.
“It is settled position in law of the land that a person not complying with law cannot be entrusted with the prerogative writ of this Court,” Mehta submitted.
After hearing both sides, the bench directed the Centre to file its reply to Mallya’s statement and scheduled the matter for further hearing next month.
(With inputs from PTI)