Union Minister of State for External Affairs Kirti Vardhan Singh has renewed calls for the early return of fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya to India, asserting that the country now has both the resolve and the mechanisms to bring back those who flee the law. Speaking to reporters in Gonda, Uttar Pradesh, on Thursday, Singh said strict action would be taken against individuals like Mallya and emphasised that extradition is no longer an impossible task—even in complex cases.

Singh’s remarks come amid renewed public and judicial attention on Mallya, who has been living in the United Kingdom since 2016 while facing multiple criminal charges in India, including fraud and money laundering. The minister’s comments also followed recent developments in the Bombay High Court, which has questioned Mallya’s continued absence from India while he seeks legal relief from Indian courts.

“Action will be taken. Such people flee the country out of fear,” Singh said, referring to economic offenders who leave India to evade legal proceedings. Drawing a sharp comparison to national security cases, he added, “No one would have imagined that even terrorists could be extradited, but one of them was brought back.” The minister was alluding to the extradition of Tahawwur Rana, a key accused in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, which has been cited by government leaders as an example of India’s growing success in pursuing fugitives abroad.

By invoking the Rana case, Singh sought to underline the government’s position that if India can secure the extradition of individuals accused of terrorism, then bringing back economic offenders should also be achievable. His statement reflects a broader political narrative that frames the pursuit of fugitives like Mallya as a matter of justice, deterrence, and national credibility.

Vijay Mallya, once a high-profile industrialist and owner of Kingfisher Airlines, is wanted in India in connection with the alleged default of loans amounting to thousands of crores of rupees taken by the now-defunct airline from a consortium of Indian banks. Investigative agencies have accused him of diverting funds and laundering money, charges that Mallya has consistently denied. He maintains that he is a victim of political targeting and financial collapse rather than criminal wrongdoing.

The issue gained fresh traction earlier this week when the Bombay High Court issued a strong ultimatum to Mallya. On Tuesday, the court asked him to return to India immediately if he wished to pursue his legal challenge against the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act (FEOA), 2018. The court made it clear that it would not entertain his plea unless he submitted to Indian jurisdiction.

Mallya has filed two petitions before the high court. One challenges an order declaring him a fugitive economic offender under the FEOA, while the other questions the constitutional validity of the law itself. The 2018 Act was enacted to deter high-value economic offenders from evading Indian courts by remaining abroad and to enable the confiscation of their properties.

The court’s insistence on Mallya’s physical presence in India reflects a growing judicial impatience with fugitives seeking relief from Indian courts while simultaneously avoiding trial. Legal experts note that this approach aligns with the spirit of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, which aims to prevent accused persons from using the legal system selectively.

Public scrutiny of Mallya intensified recently after a video circulated on social media showing him celebrating his 70th birthday in London with another high-profile fugitive, Lalit Modi, the former IPL chairman. The video, shared by Lalit Modi himself, showed Mallya smiling and appearing relaxed, alongside his partner Pinky Lalwani. The images sparked widespread criticism in India, where many saw them as a symbol of impunity and disregard for the legal process.

The sight of two prominent economic offenders socialising abroad reignited political debate over extradition delays and the challenges involved in bringing such individuals back to face trial. Government representatives have repeatedly stated that extradition proceedings are subject to legal processes in foreign jurisdictions and cannot be rushed unilaterally. However, remarks like those made by Kirti Vardhan Singh indicate an effort to reassure the public that the government remains committed to pursuing these cases.

India has been seeking Mallya’s extradition from the UK for several years. British courts have earlier ruled in favour of his extradition, but the process has been prolonged due to multiple appeals and legal remedies pursued by Mallya. He has argued that he would not receive a fair trial in India and has cited concerns about prison conditions, claims that Indian authorities have rejected.

The Ministry of External Affairs has consistently maintained that it is working closely with UK authorities and Indian investigative agencies to ensure that all legal requirements are met. Officials have also pointed out that extradition cases, particularly those involving financial crimes, are often lengthy due to the complexity of evidence and the safeguards built into foreign legal systems.

Kirti Vardhan Singh’s statement in Gonda must be viewed in this context, as part of a broader political effort to project firmness on the issue of economic fugitives. By equating the extradition of financial offenders with that of terrorists, the minister sought to send a strong message that the government considers economic crimes a serious threat to the nation’s financial stability and public trust.

For many Indians, the Mallya case has come to symbolise the frustration surrounding large-scale bank defaults and the perceived lack of accountability for powerful individuals. Successive governments have faced criticism over such cases, making the pursuit of fugitives a politically sensitive issue.

As legal proceedings continue in both India and the UK, the spotlight remains firmly on Vijay Mallya and the government’s efforts to secure his return. Whether the renewed political push and judicial pressure will translate into concrete outcomes remains to be seen. However, statements like Singh’s underline a clear message: the era of fugitives living comfortably abroad while facing serious charges at home is increasingly being challenged, both in courts and in public discourse.