London: Vijay Mallya has applied to Home Secretary Priti Patel for "another route" to be able to stay in the UK, the liquor tycoon's barrister representing him in bankruptcy proceedings in the High Court of London confirmed during a remote hearing on Friday.

The 65-year-old businessman, whose legal challenge to the Indian government's extradition request was turned down at the Supreme Court level in the UK last year, remains in Britain on bail until Patel signs off on the order for him to be extradited to India to face charges of fraud and money laundering related to the now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines.

The UK Home Office has so far only confirmed on background that a confidential legal process remains ongoing before the extradition order can be executed.

This had raised widespread speculation that Mallya had sought asylum in the UK, details of which are neither confirmed nor denied by the Home Office in Britain while an application is pending.

The extradition was upheld but he [Mallya] is still here because as you know there is another route for him to apply to the Secretary of State [Patel] for status, said Mallya's barrister Philip Marshall, when specifically asked by Deputy Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Nigel Barnett about the status of the extradition proceedings.

It is likely that the reference is to an asylum route which, according to legal experts, would depend upon whether Mallya applied for asylum prior to the extradition request or after.

He would need to argue much stronger grounds. There are specific rules that detail when asylum is a bar to extradition, it is clear that claiming asylum after all appeals have been exhausted is unlikely to be considered a valid claim to asylum protection, explains Toby Cadman, co-founder of Guernica 37 International Justice Chambers and a UK-based extradition specialist.

The court on Friday also heard how Mallya, who submitted written evidence for the hearing, was in a "constrained" position as a close relative had passed away as a result of COVID-19.

The remote hearing in the commercial division of the High Court in London was to establish whether the court can sanction substantial sums towards Mallya's living expenses and legal fees from the sale of a French luxury property Le Grand Jardin last year.

The money is held in the UK's Court Funds Office (CFO) as part of bankruptcy proceedings brought by a consortium of Indian banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI) in pursuit of unpaid loans.

Mallya's legal team argues that he should be sanctioned the required funds to meet mounting legal costs in India and the UK, which includes costs to be paid to the UK's Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) which argued the extradition proceedings on behalf of the Indian authorities.

The lawyers for the banks have challenged this as it would dissipate the funds owed to his creditors towards speculative and "unreasonable" costs while other sources of funds remain available to the businessman.

The hearing forms part of a series as both sides make arguments for and against a bankruptcy order against Mallya in the UK.

Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.



Chandigarh (PTI): It is the willingness and consent of a married woman that is all that matters, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed, while allowing a petitioner to undergo abortion without her husband's consent.

The direction came on a plea moved by the 21-year-old petitioner from Punjab, seeking permission to terminate her pregnancy in its second trimester.

The petitioner had submitted that she got married on May 2, 2025 and had a turbulent relationship with her husband.

In the previous hearing, the court had issued directions to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER) to constitute a medical board to examine the petitioner.

According to the medical report, the woman was medically fit to undergo MTP (medical termination of pregnancy).

ALSO READ:  Congress and NCP (SP) to contest separately in Nagpur civic polls

According to the December 23 report, there is a single live intra-uterine foetus with a gestational age of 16 weeks and a day, with no congenital malformation.

"Patient has symptoms of depression and anxiety for the last six months, (and) has been undergoing treatment with minimal improvement. She is severely distressed about her pregnancy amidst divorce proceedings. It is recommended that she continues to undergo her psychiatric treatment and counselling. She is psychologically fit to consent," the report of the medical board said.

A bench of justice Suvir Sehgal said it is evident from the report that according to experts, the petitioner is in a fit medical condition for the termination of her pregnancy.

The sole question that requires to be considered is whether her estranged husband's consent is required before such termination, the court observed.

The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, does not provide for an express or implied consent of the husband, it pointed out.

"A married lady is the best judge to evaluate as to whether she intends to continue with pregnancy or get it aborted. Her willingness and consent is all that matters," the court noted.

It said according to the medical report, the gestation period of a foetus is less than 20 weeks and falls within the maximum period prescribed under the Act.

"This court, therefore, does not find any obstacle in permitting the petitioner to undergo abortion. In view of the above, it is directed that petitioner is eligible to get the pregnancy terminated from respondent No.2 -- PGIMER -- or any other authorised hospital," the order passed on December 24 said.

"Let the petitioner, within the next one week, get the medical termination of pregnancy from PGIMER, Chandigarh, or any other authorised hospital, which must take due care and precaution while conducting the procedure," the court added while disposing of the plea.