Mumbai: Beleaguered liquor baron Vijay Mallya on Wednesday claimed he has been given an ‘economic death penalty’ by declaring him a ‘fugitive economic offender’ and ordering confiscation of his properties across India.
He accordingly urged the Bombay High Court to stay the proceedings initiated against him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the newly-enforced Fugitive Economic Offenders (FEO) Act. A bench of Justices Ranjit More and Bharati Dangre, however, refused to stay the proceedings as well as the confiscation of Mallya’s properties.
The bench was dealing with a plea by Mallya challenging several provisions of the FEO law, which was passed by Parliament in August, last year. The ED, which is investigating the cases against Mallya had urged a special court to declare him a fugitive and subsequently had sought permission to confiscate his properties.
The anti-money laundering agency claimed the properties were purchased by Mallya through the ‘proceeds of crime.’ Accordingly, the special court declared Mallya a fugitive in January this year and is presently dealing with an application by the ED to confiscate his properties.
Referring to this action, Mallya’s advocate Amit Desai said, “My debts and the interest are mounting. I have the assets to repay the amounts (debts) but the government is not allowing me to use my assets. I have no control over my own properties due to this action.”
“I can say by initiating all this against me, the court has imposed an economic death penalty on me,” Desai submitted.
During the hearing, Desai claimed the new FEO law was ‘draconian and unconstitutional’ as it allowed the government to confiscate everything. The submissions were vehemently opposed by the counsel appearing for ED.
“This act is not at all draconian and in fact, this law prohibits prosecuting agencies from acting on their own. For every action, the agencies are bound (by the law) to seek leave from a court, which would pass an order only after hearing all the sides. The law has been introduced for people like Mallya, who have fled the country after committing scams,” the ED counsel argued.
Having heard the submissions, the bench noted the law was not draconian and instead was a sound one. “We understand this legislation is a little harsh. But that is because it deals with draconian situations, remarked the judges. The bench, accordingly, issued a notice to the Attorney General (AG) of India to respond to Mallya’s plea and has adjourned the matter for hearing on June 24.
