Mumbai: The Bombay High Court warned “Fugitive Economic Offender” UK-based businessman Vijay Mallya against posting court documents on social media while the money laundering matter being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is still being heard, a lawyer said on Tuesday.
Advocate Ashish Mehta said that High Court’s direction to the fugitive businessman, allegedly present in the UK, followed the ED’s objection to Mallya uploading the probe agency’s affidavit on social media platform X even before the court had considered its contents.
Posting the matter for hearing on October 13, the High Court directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to file a fresh affidavit taking into account the disclosures made by the ED.
Earlier, Mallya had told the High Court in February that he was not in a position to specify when he would return to India.
He cited restrictions imposed by courts in England that he said prevented him from leaving the country.
The High Court was hearing two petitions filed by Mallya.
One petition challenges his designation as a “Fugitive Economic Offender” under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act (FEOA), while the other contests a court order formally declaring him a fugitive.
Senior advocate Amit Desai, appearing for Mallya, had referred to Supreme Court judgments where writ petitions were heard even in the absence of petitioners.
He had submitted that extradition proceedings against Mallya are ongoing in the UK and that his client is aware of them but is unable to leave the English jurisdiction due to binding court orders.
The High Court, however, questioned Mallya’s intent to appear before the court, saying that he appeared to be relying on UK court orders without clarifying whether those orders had been challenged.
The Bench indicated that such reliance could not be treated as a blanket justification.
The court had directed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to file a response to Mallya’s affidavit.
It also asked Desai to submit a detailed affidavit placing on record all statements made during the hearing so that the Union of India could respond accordingly.
(IANS)
