The Bombay High Court on Tuesday, 22 September warned fugitive economic offender and UK-based businessman Vijay Mallya against uploading court documents on social media while the Enforcement Directorate (ED) money laundering case against him remains sub judice. The warning followed the ED's formal objection to Mallya posting the agency's affidavit on social media platform X before the court had even examined its contents.

What Triggered the Court's Warning

Advocate Ashish Mehta told the court that Mallya — reportedly based in the United Kingdom — had uploaded the ED's affidavit on X prior to the bench considering it. The ED objected, arguing that pre-emptive disclosure of sub-judice probe documents risks prejudicing the proceedings. The High Court accepted the objection and issued the caution to Mallya against any further such uploads.

Fresh Affidavit Ordered; Next Date Set

The court posted the matter for hearing on 13 October and directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to file a fresh affidavit incorporating the disclosures made by the ED. It also directed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to file a response to Mallya's affidavit, and asked senior advocate Amit Desai — appearing for Mallya — to submit a detailed affidavit placing all statements made during the hearing on record so the Union of India could respond accordingly.

Mallya's Position and the Court's Scepticism

Desai submitted that extradition proceedings against Mallya are ongoing in the UK and that his client is unable to leave the English jurisdiction due to binding court orders there. He cited Supreme Court precedents where writ petitions were heard even in the petitioner's absence. The High Court, however, questioned Mallya's intent to appear before it, noting 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 for his continued absence.

Background: Two Petitions, One Fugitive Tag

The High Court is hearing two petitions filed by Mallya. The first challenges his designation as a 'Fugitive Economic Offender' under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act (FEOA), while the second contests the formal court order declaring him a fugitive. In February, Mallya had told the court he was not in a position to specify a date for his return to India, citing the UK court-imposed travel restrictions. This is the latest in a prolonged legal tussle that has kept Mallya abroad since 2016, even as Indian banks — led by SBI — pursue recovery of thousands of crores in unpaid dues.

What Happens Next

With the matter adjourned to 13 October, the SBI's fresh affidavit and the Union of India's response to Mallya's submissions will be central to the next hearing. The court's scepticism over Mallya's continued reliance on UK orders, combined with its insistence on fresh disclosures, signals that the bench is tightening procedural rigour around a case that has dragged on for years.