Vijay Mallya Tells Bombay HC He Cannot Return to India, Cites UK Travel Ban

Vijay Mallya on Wednesday told the Bombay High Court that he cannot commit to returning to India as he is legally restricted from leaving the United Kingdom, a submission that comes nearly a decade after he left the country amid mounting financial investigations.

Through his counsel, Mallya informed the court that conditions imposed by UK courts prevent him from travelling outside England and Wales. He also pointed out that his passport remains revoked, making international travel legally impossible at present.

The bench questioned whether Mallya, who is challenging proceedings initiated against him under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, intends to submit himself to Indian jurisdiction. In response, his legal team maintained that while he is contesting the label of "fugitive," he cannot presently specify a date for his return because of restrictions abroad.

Mallya, once a high-profile industrialist and head of the now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines, has been accused of defaulting on loans running into thousands of crores. Investigative agencies in India have been pursuing his extradition since 2016.

The court has now sought a detailed affidavit outlining the precise nature of the travel restrictions imposed in the UK. The Union government is expected to file its response in the matter. The case will be heard again on a later date.

The development raises fresh questions about the pace of long-pending extradition efforts and the broader enforcement of economic offence laws. While Mallya continues to pursue legal remedies, Indian authorities maintain that accountability requires his physical presence before domestic courts.

Nearly a decade after leaving India, the question is no longer about intent but about consequence. Legal technicalities in foreign jurisdictions may delay proceedings, but they should not dilute the principle that financial accountability is territorial and non-negotiable. For a country striving to project financial discipline and rule-of-law strength, closure in such cases is not symbolic it is structural.