The Bombay High Court on Thursday raised doubts over the maintainability of fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya’s petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Fugitive Economic Offenders (FEO) Act, 2018.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad made it clear that it would proceed with the matter only after Mallya’s legal team confirmed when he intended to return to India.
“You come here, then we will hear you. Take instructions on when he will come,” the bench remarked, expressing “serious doubts” about hearing the petition given the nature and purpose of the FEO Act.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED), represented by Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju and Anil Singh, submitted an affidavit urging the court to dismiss Mallya’s plea. The agency reiterated allegations of Mallya’s involvement in a bank fraud exceeding ₹6,200 crore, with total outstanding liabilities reaching nearly ₹15,000 crore.
The ED argued that a fugitive who has consistently avoided the Indian judicial process cannot challenge the constitutionality of a law designed specifically to address such conduct. Citing Section 14 of the FEO Act, the agency stated that the statute explicitly bars offenders from evading Indian jurisdiction through legal proceedings filed from abroad.
Mallya has argued that the confiscation of his assets violates his constitutional right to property. The ED rejected this claim, noting that he had multiple opportunities to appear before Indian courts but chose not to do so. The agency further emphasized that the Act mandates confiscation of properties in cases involving economic offences above ₹100 crore, particularly when such offences have significant implications for the national economy.
The ED added, “It bears a clear and rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, namely, to create adequate deterrence and compel the accused to submit to the jurisdiction of the court and face trial.”
Mallya has also challenged Section 12(8) of the Act, arguing that it provides no mechanism for restoring confiscated property in the event of an acquittal. Refuting this, the ED pointed to Section 12(9), which allows the return of assets if the special court determines an individual is not a fugitive economic offender. Restoration, the agency stressed, is only possible if the accused returns to India and is acquitted of the scheduled offences.
The agency has urged the court to uphold Mallya’s FEO declaration and the subsequent attachment of his properties.
The matter has been adjourned until December 23.
