Bombay High Court’s Ultimatum to Vijay Mallya: No Relief Without Return

The Bombay High Court has taken a definitive stance on the ongoing legal challenges mounted by fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya. In a significant hearing held on Wednesday, February 18, 2026, the court addressed the critical conflict between a petitioner’s right to challenge a law and their obligation to submit to the nation’s jurisdiction.

1. The Judicial Stand: "Return to India First"

The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad, reiterated a strict precondition for Mallya’s legal pleas. The court made it clear that it will not entertain Mallya’s challenge against the order declaring him a Fugitive Economic Offender (FEO) or his petition questioning the constitutional validity of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act unless he physically returns to India.

The court’s rationale is rooted in the principle of Equity: a person seeking relief from the court must "come with clean hands" and must not be seen as actively evading the legal process of that very court.

2. Mallya’s Defense: Legal Deadlock in the UK

Through his senior counsel, Amit Desai, Mallya submitted a formal statement today explaining his inability to specify a return date. The defense highlighted two primary hurdles:

• Revocation of Passport: Mallya’s Indian passport was revoked by the government in 2016, leaving him without valid travel documents to board a flight to India.

• UK Court Orders: He informed the court that current orders from the courts of England and Wales strictly prohibit him from leaving the country or possessing any international travel document.

3. The "Statutory Irrelevance" Argument

Mallya’s counsel raised a unique legal point regarding the FEO Act. He argued that if Mallya were to physically appear in India, the current proceedings would essentially become redundant. Under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, once an individual appears before the concerned court, the "Fugitive" tag and the associated orders are naturally set aside.

Counsel argued that by insisting on his presence before hearing the constitutional challenge, the court is effectively leaving him "remedy-less." The defense maintained that the merits of a constitutional challenge (vires of the Act) should be independent of the physical location of the petitioner.

4. Government's Opposition and Extradition Fears

Representing the Union Government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta raised concerns regarding the timing of Mallya’s affidavits. The government argued that Mallya’s extradition process from the UK is in an advanced stage. There is an apprehension that Mallya might attempt to use any favorable observations or pending proceedings from the Bombay High Court to stall his extradition in British courts.

However, the Bench noted that it had already recorded in previous orders that these domestic proceedings should not be misused to interfere with the separate extradition process.

Conclusion and Next Steps

The hearing concluded with the court directing the Union Government to file a formal reply to Mallya’s latest statement within one week. The matter has been posted for its next hearing in the second week of March 2026.