09 September,2026 10:40 AM IST | New Delhi | mid-day online correspondent
Vijay Mallya. File Photo
Businessman Vijay Mallya has rejected the description of him as a fugitive, claiming that he is legally prohibited from leaving the United Kingdom and alleging that the Indian government has treated him unfairly.
In a series of posts on X, Mallya said he has been a permanent resident of the UK since 1992 and claimed that his continued stay in the country was the result of legal proceedings rather than a refusal to return to India.
His comments come amid the long-running legal proceedings involving the former Kingfisher Airlines promoter and the Indian authorities.
"For all who say I am a fugitive refusing to come to India, please be aware that I have been a permanent resident of the United Kingdom since 1992 and am currently legally prohibited from leaving this country. All this started with poster boy actions by the Government of India who have been grossly unjust in my case," he said in a post on X.
Mallya's statement follows the Indian government's continued efforts to bring economic offenders wanted in the country back to face legal proceedings.
In October 2025, Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Chaudhary told the Lok Sabha that 15 individuals had been declared Fugitive Economic Offenders (FEOs) under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018. The list included Mallya and Nirav Modi, among others.
The FEO Act provides a legal framework for dealing with individuals who leave India to avoid prosecution or refuse to return to face criminal proceedings in specified economic offences.
The Ministry of External Affairs had said in December last year that the government remained committed to ensuring that fugitives wanted in India returned to the country and faced trial.
"We remain fully committed that people who are fugitives and wanted by law in India, return to the country. For this particular return, we are in talks with several governments and processes are on... There are several layers of legalities involved but we remain committed to bring them back to the country so they can face trial before the courts here," MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal had said.
The government has previously maintained that the return of individuals facing legal proceedings involves multiple legal and diplomatic processes.
In another post on Tuesday, Mallya referred to what he described as an affidavit filed by the Enforcement Directorate before the Bombay High Court.
"Affidavit filed by the ED in the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Para 7 is the decreed debt and Para 17 shows recovered Rs 14,131.60 crore in 2021 !! 5 years on I am still referred to as a fraud who cheated the Banks," he said.
Mallya also shared a table that he claimed represented the recovery of dues and questioned why he continued to be described as a fugitive and fraudster.
"To all who believe in fair and proper accounting justice please see the following table. Do I still deserve the way I am berated by the media and referred to as a fraudster at the very outset of a journalist's script ? Why not start asking when I will get my refund," he said.
"For all you naysayers, please independently verify and see that the ED released over Rs 350 crores to pay Kingfisher employees from my attached funds. I could not pay because ED attached my assets/funds," he added.
Mallya has made similar claims in the past regarding the recovery of money owed to banks.
In August, he wrote on X, "...Banks and Government have admitted having recovered Rs 14,100 crores from me against a Judgement debt of Rs 6203 crores. Many more borrowers have settled at a fraction. Indian Debt Resolution Justice I presume. No media questions."
The figures and claims cited by Mallya concern the recovery of assets and money in proceedings linked to his financial liabilities. His assertions should be distinguished from the findings and orders of courts and investigating agencies in the cases against him.
The dispute over Mallya's legal status and his return to India has also been the subject of proceedings before the Bombay High Court.
In February this year, the court criticised Mallya, saying he could not seek equitable relief while deliberately avoiding court proceedings.
The court gave him a final opportunity to clarify whether he intended to return to India. Mallya's petition challenges the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act as well as the proceedings through which he was declared a fugitive economic offender.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Chandrashekhar was hearing Mallya's petition challenging the constitutional validity of the FEO Act and the proceedings declaring him a fugitive.
The bench indicated that it was inclined to record that Mallya was evading the court's jurisdiction and, on that basis, could not expect relief in his petition.
