British Home Secretary Sajid Javid has signed the order for the extradition of liquor baron Vijay Mallya to India. The businessman — whose legal team had previously indicated their intention to appeal the extradition — will now have two weeks to lodge an appeal.
The signing of the order on February 3 came just a few days shy of the two-month window from the date of judgement — December 10, 2018 — within which a decision had to be made.
“On 3 February, the Secretary of State, having carefully considered all relevant matters, signed the order for Vijay Mallya’s extradition to India,” the British Home Office said in a statement. “Vijay Mallya is accused in India of conspiracy to defraud, making false representations and money laundering offenses.”
Under Britain’s extradition rules, Mr. Javid had two months from the date of the judgement to determine whether to order the extradition.
In making extradition decisions, the Minister has to consider issues including whether the death penalty would be involved or the person be extradited to a third country (neither of which would apply in this case).
An appeal can only be lodged after the signing of the order by the minister.
Anand Doobay, lawyer for Vijay Mallya, who faces charges of money laundering and fraud in India, had confirmed late last year that he intended to appeal the extradition order once it was confirmed by the British authorities.
Just days after the judgement in December, Mr Doobay had said that he would “file an application for permission to appeal.”
Should the appeal to the High Court fail, Mr. Mallya would still have further opportunities to attempt to overturn the extradition order, by seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, though that could only take place if the High Court certified that the appeal involved a “point of law of general public importance, and either the High Court or the Supreme Court gives leave for the appeal to be made.”
Late last week, Mr. Mallya took to Twitter to criticise Indian authorities and the banks, accusing the latter of pursuing “multiple frivolous litigations” against him. He accused the banks’ lawyers of objecting to him paying “legitimate tax dues” in the U.K.