A Strenuous Road Ahead: How Long Until Vijay Mallya Gets Extradited?

Must Read

The Right to Information and its Working of 15 years

On 12th October 2020, RTI finished fifteen years since its commencement. The question remains whether the legislation stands up to...

An Insight into Custodial Death in India

“The occurrence of Custodial deaths in the world’s greatest democracy has raised the eyebrows of every citizen and shaken...

Implications in Travel Insurance in Light of the COVID-19 Crisis

As the world, today is crippled by this once in a century pandemic and as of date more than...

Second-Round Effects of Rent Control Laws: The Argentine Case

Introduction In colonial India, a city had an issue with its cobra population, which was a problem clearly in need...

Why Are the Big Techs of Silicon Valley Accused of Anti-Competitive Behaviours?

The big tech giants of the Silicon Valley are facing major challenges with relation to their monopolistic powers after...

KSK announces Sanjay Kumar as a Partner for Pharma & Life Sciences Practice

New Partner for KSK's Pharma & Life Sciences Practice King Stubb & Kasiva recently announced that Mr Sanjay Kumar has...

Follow us

Fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya has been in the United Kingdom since 2016. He has absconded from India and is wanted over alleged charges of Money Laundering and fraud. Indian banks allege him to have defrauded them of ₹9,000 crores. He was once dubbed “The King of Good Times” as he owned India’s biggest liquor company, Kingfisher. However, he is now a Fugitive Economic Offender (FEO).

He suffered a major setback when he launched his new venture Kingfisher Airlines in 2005. In eight years of its operation, Kingfisher Airlines never once registered profit. Moreover, banks have labelled him as a “Wilful Defaulter”. This is because he hasn’t been repaying the money but has luxuriated himself in a lavish lifestyle. Since 2017, he remains on bail on an extradition warrant executed by Scotland Yard. 

What are Vijay Mallya’s Alternatives?

In May 2020, Vijay Mallya hit a significant roadblock to avoid his Extradition. The High Court rejected his application seeking leave to appeal in UK Supreme Court. TheUK Extradition Act 2003 lays down the procedures post dismissal of the application. Section 118(2)(a) of the said Act provides that the person must be extradited to the Category 2 territory before the end of the required period. This period is 28 days starting from the day on which the decision of the Court on the appeal becomes final. Thus, it sets the 28-days required period within which they must extradite the accused. 

Furthermore, Section 118(7) requires compliance with the procedure laid down. If the concerned nation does not extradite the fugitive within 28 days, the person can apply to the appropriate judge for discharge. If the judge is satisfied, he can order his discharge. But, the right available to the person is not absolute. As per the said provision, the judge may reject his application if there is a “reasonable cause” for the delay. The turmoil caused due to the pandemic can be a reasonable cause under the said provision. 

This decision might have come as a relief to the Indian Government. They have been consistent in their efforts to extradite Vijay Mallya. However, Mallya still many options left at his disposal to delay the Extradition. 

What are the Further Alternatives Available to Him?

First, is an appeal to the Home Secretary. This is by making representations based on fresh evidence or any interceding event. The Home Secretary may consider the issues if it applies to various human rights. One instance of the same can be whether the requesting State would give the person a Death Penalty (Section 94, UK Extradition Act, 2003). Another could be the facilities at the prison where he would be after extradition. Another question that arises is whether the requesting State can keep the person safe during COVID-19.

Second, he can give an application to seek political asylum in the UK. Immigration law provides for political asylum. It can apply if he fears persecution in the requesting State. This is entirely a different avenue. Here the person must establish that he would be persecuted if he returns to the requesting State. 

At last, he can apply under Rule 39 of the European Court of Human Rights. Under Rule 39, the European Court of Human Rights may give interim measures to any State party. Mostly, the applicant resorts to Rule 39 for the suspension of extradition. The Court grants such request only if it is satisfied that the applicant would otherwise face an imminent risk and irreversible harm. Moreover, Vijay Mallya could contend that he would have to face inhumane conditions. This would be a direct violation of Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The UK is a signatory to this. Article 3 states that “No one must be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Extradition Halted Due to Confidential Legal Issue

In the first week of June 2020, Media speculated that Vijay Mallya might soon be extradited to India. He would land in Mumbai since this is the jurisdiction where they registered the case against him. This is owing to the rejection of his application by the UK Courts against his Extradition order. 

But, India’s efforts to bring back the liquor baron seem to have hit a roadblock again. On 4th June 2020, UK High Commission informed that there is still a Confidential Legal issue. Unless the said legal issue is resolved, there would be a halt in the process. Another aspect is that if Mallya is not extradited within 28 days, he can apply to the Court for discharge. But as mentioned above, the Indian Government can seek an extension. They would have to establish “reasonable cause” for the delay. 

What does “Confidential Legal Issue” Mean Here?

The major speculation on the “Confidential Legal Issue” is that of the application for political asylum. The extradition cannot happen until the issues of political asylum are determined. Also, the Indian Government might not be aware of the same. This is because it is an ex-parte proceeding; i.e., it does not involve the Indian Government as a party. It only involves the Home Secretary and the Asylum Seeker. 

Also, one issue that he could highlight in his appeal to the Home Secretary is his safety in Mumbai’s Arthur Road Jail. COVID-19 has infected over 170 people within the Jail. This includes 150+ inmates and 20+ police officials. His contention would be the inability of the Jail Authorities to keep him safe from Covid-19. He would also highlight the lack of proper facilities in the jail. Another reason for the delay could be the civil cases concerning Indian Banks and his battle with Diageo. Those are yet pending in the UK courts.

Vijay Mallya has not yet applied to the European Court of Human Rights under Rule 39. However, if he does and is successful, this would forbid his extradition. The Government cannot extradite him till the determination of the complaint. It is interesting to note that out of 82, none of the requests was granted in 2019. 


It’s been four years since the owner of the now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines absconded. The Indian Government’s effort to bring him back always seems to have hit a hurdle. It has been 28 years since India and the United Kingdom signed the Extradition Treaty in 1992. In 28 years of the Treaty being in operation, there have been only two extraditions from the UK. This involves that of Samirbhai Vinubhai Patel in 2016 and Sanjeev Chawla in 2020. Fortunately, recently in February 2020, India had its first successful Extradition from the United Kingdom, when bookie Sanjeev Chawla was handed over to the Delhi Police by the Scotland Yard officers. This is because the Extradition of Samirbhai Patel in 2016 was voluntary and on his own accord. 

The extradition of Sanjeev Chawla might be a sign of changing attitude of the UK towards the offenders from India harbouring in the UK. The extradition of business tycoon Vijay Mallya would be a triumph for India. There are various other high-profile offenders from India seeking refuge there. India has sought to extradite Lalit Modi (for alleged financial offences), Tiger Haniff (Gujarat Blast case), Ravi Sankaran (Navy War room leak case) and Nirav Modi (for Money Laundering and Fraud).

The successful Extradition of liquor baron Vijay Mallya would be a significant accomplishment. 

Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -