The Bombay High Court recently expressed its disapproval of fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya’s decision to circulate an Enforcement Directorate (ED) affidavit on the social media platform X. The court voiced concerns over how such actions could potentially compromise the authority and function of the judiciary.
Legal Repercussions of Social Media Disclosure
Justice Milind Jadhav, presiding over the matter, cautioned Mallya’s legal representatives against engaging in legal battles on public forums such as social media. He emphasized that such conduct could be detrimental to their client’s case. “Please make your client understand; this is not the way to do it. What happens is, it undermines the efficacy of the court,” Justice Jadhav remarked during the proceedings.
ED’s Objection
The Enforcement Directorate’s counsel brought the issue to the court’s attention, noting that the affidavit, which was emailed to Mallya’s legal team at 4:30 PM, was subsequently posted online by 11 PM, accompanied by derogatory comments. “This is not fair to Your Lordship’s court…Your Lordship has not even had the chance to see it. The applicant should fight it out in court, not on Twitter,” the counsel for the ED asserted.
Legal Team’s Response
Senior Advocate Amit Desai, representing Mallya, assured the court that the message would be communicated to their client. He also highlighted that the ED has, on various occasions, released information about Mallya publicly.
Core Dispute and Future Proceedings
The primary legal contention revolves around Mallya’s application concerning asset recoveries managed by central agencies. The ED’s affidavit disclosed that it had remitted approximately ₹14,131 crore to a State Bank of India (SBI)-led consortium through the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). Desai pointed out that this recovery significantly surpasses the initially decreed debt of about ₹6,600 crore plus interest.
Justice Jadhav instructed the SBI consortium to submit a new affidavit in light of the ED’s revelations. Following this, Mallya was permitted to file a detailed amendment application. The case is scheduled for further hearing on October 13.
