Mallya recasts himself in the interview not as a fraudster but as a wronged entrepreneur — betrayed by the system, misrepresented by the press, and hounded for failures that were, he insists, not his own
Mallya interview: A fact check, his version of truth and what he leaves out
Mallya’s version of events is persuasive but scratch deeper most unravel into evasion or half-truths; his claims are selectively true, here's what he's leaving out
“Legacy media only shows one side of the story”
— Vijay Mallya, speaking to Raj Shamani in a four-hour interview, June 06, 2025
Nearly nine years after fleeing India, Vijay Mallya has finally broken his silence — not in a courtroom, but in a four-hour interview with influencer Raj Shamani. Calm and articulate but weather-beaten, Mallya recast himself not as a fraudster but as a wronged entrepreneur — betrayed by the system, misrepresented by the press, and hounded for failures that were, he insists, not his own.
Over the course of four hours, Mallya painted a picture of a misunderstood businessman, a victim of hostile economic conditions, poor policy, political pressure, and biased media.
“Legacy media only shows one side of the story,” he complained, as he tried to recast himself not as a criminal but as a scapegoat. But Mallya’s narrative — smooth, often emotionally persuasive, and heavily curated — collapses under the weight of facts, legal documents, court rulings, and regulatory findings. When held up to scrutiny, his claims are selectively true.
Never borrowed claim
"I never borrowed a paisa. Kingfisher Airlines did."
Technically accurate — but deeply disingenuous.
Yes, the loans were in the name of Kingfisher Airlines. But Mallya signed personal guarantees for many of them, and Indian and UK courts have held him liable for repayment. The UK High Court declared him bankrupt in 2021 to enable recovery proceedings. Legal semantics aside, Mallya was not just a shareholder — he was the CEO and promoter who exercised full operational control.
To suggest the debt is purely corporate, not personal, is a half-truth at best.
At one time, he claimed that his employees do not realise that the failure of a business does not mean that those who run it are responsible for it. In a 2015 interview, he stated: “In a Public Limited Company, where is one man, who might be the chairman, responsible for the finances of the entire company? And what has it got to do with all my other businesses? I have built up and run the largest spirits company in the world in this country.”
Made 4 settlement offers
“I made four settlement offers. None were accepted.”
What Mallya omits is that these offers — notably one in 2016 for ₹4,000 crore — were far below the total dues of over ₹9,000 crore, including interest. Banks declined because the proposals demanded deep haircuts. Later, “unconditional” offers came after he had fled the country and been declared a fugitive. Settlement negotiations during the enforcement action are not acts of goodwill; they are often strategic legal tactics.
Rs 14,000 crore recovery
“The banks have recovered Rs 14,000 crore — more than they lent.”
That is factually correct — but it doesn’t prove innocence.
The Rs 14,000 crore was recovered after Mallya’s assets were attached by the Enforcement Directorate and sold off. These were not voluntary repayments. The money came from the forced sale of pledged shares in United Breweries and United Spirits. Recovery is a result of the legal process, not Mallya’s generosity.
That the banks got more than they lent only underscores how deeply Mallya had mortgaged his empire — and how long they had to wait.
Don't downsize airline
“The government told me not to downsize the airline.”
This claim — involving former finance minister Pranab Mukherjee — is anecdotal and uncorroborated. Mallya says he wanted to cut costs during the 2008 crisis, but the government insisted Kingfisher continue operations to protect jobs.
Even if true, the final decision rested with the company’s management. No minister ordered Kingfisher to acquire Air Deccan or to operate a dual airline model that haemorrhaged money. Blaming the government for strategic failure is a convenient form of revisionism.
When Kingfisher Airlines was already posting losses of around Rs 1,000 crore, what was the rationale behind acquiring another airline—Air Deccan—which was facing similar losses? Two negatives may make a positive in mathematics, but certainly not on a profit and loss statement. To fly international routes, one needs deep pockets, and with a combined loss of Rs 2,000 crore, it was always a losing game for the airline.
By acquiring Air Deccan, Kingfisher gained the right to operate international routes, but doing so came at a significantly higher cost than even running the domestic operations.
Didn't siphon money
“I didn’t siphon money. I invested Rs 3,000 crore of my own funds.”
The Enforcement Directorate and CBI beg to differ. Multiple chargesheets allege that loan money was routed to shell companies, overseas accounts, and even Mallya’s own F1 team. The UK court that approved his extradition noted “clear evidence of misrepresentation” and “diversion of funds.”
The ED’s attachments — yachts, properties, shares — were not linked to the airline’s operations.
Most flawed claim
“If I’m a thief, how did the banks recover their money?”
This is perhaps the most audacious of Mallya’s claims — and the most flawed.
The law does not say that fraud is negated if recovery happens. Nor does repayment post-facto absolve misconduct. If that logic held, every economic offender could claim innocence after their assets were seized. The issue is not whether the money was recovered but whether it was misused, diverted, or obtained through misrepresentation. On that count, courts have ruled against him repeatedly.
Left India legally
“I didn’t run away. I left India legally.”
True — but only just.
Mallya flew to London on March 2, 2016, using his diplomatic passport. He left openly but did so a day after banks moved the Supreme Court to stop him. The CBI had issued a Lookout Circular but downgraded it to a “report departure” notice — an error it later admitted. Legally, he did not abscond. However, he chose exile over answering the summons. That’s not an illegal flight. It’s premeditated evasion.
After he left the country, he issued a statement saying that he had not fled the country but that he keeps going abroad often for work and that he would be the first person to return if any of the authorities in India, like the ED, ask him to come and attend a court hearing and he is a law-abiding citizen.
Once he went to London, he issued another statement saying that he feared arrest and harassment and would not return to the country. So, he should have returned and faced those cases if one were to go by his statement.
Issue of 'fair trial'
“I would return if given assurance of a fair trial.”
Mallya is well aware that no Indian court will provide special guarantees. He has exhausted his appeals in the UK, and an undisclosed asylum request now protects his ongoing stay in London.
If he truly wanted to prove his innocence, the courtroom door in Mumbai is wide open. Mallya refers vaguely to an “ongoing confidential legal matter” that has delayed his extradition, but he never uses the word “asylum” or clearly confirms that he has sought refugee status.
Staff salaries
“I take full responsibility — but I wasn’t allowed to pay staff salaries.”
Mallya did attempt to release funds deposited in a Karnataka High Court account to pay unpaid Kingfisher salaries. The banks objected. The court denied the request. This part of his story is true. However, wages had been owed for a long time before the airline collapsed, and nothing prevented Mallya from using his personal wealth to help.
Media made me a villain
“The media turned me into a villain.”
On this, Mallya has a point.
The Indian media loved the King of Good Times — until it didn’t. His lavish lifestyle, flamboyant parties, and patronage of cricket, Formula One and fashion made him a tabloid magnet. Once Kingfisher fell, those same images — yachts, champagne, models — became symbols of excess.
Media trials often replaced the legal process in the public imagination. Yet, that’s a consequence of optics Mallya himself cultivated. When you live in the spotlight, you must own both the glow and the glare.
Spin is not salvation
Vijay Mallya’s version of events is polished, persuasive, and occasionally poignant. He offers explanations that, on the surface, sound plausible. But scratch deeper, and most unravel into evasion or half-truths.
Yes, Kingfisher was a victim of high fuel taxes, flawed foreign direct investment (FDI) policies, and economic headwinds. But it was also a victim of hubris, poor decisions, and financial mismanagement. Mallya wasn’t chased because he defaulted. He was chased because he dodged.
To the extent that the media portrayed him as a caricature, Mallya’s interview is a rebuttal. But to the extent that Indian institutions have pursued him — through courts, tribunals, and international forums — the story is not just one-sided. It is evidentiary.
Legacy media might have shaped the public narrative. But it’s the legacy of broken loans, bounced cheques, and unanswered summons that shaped the legal one.
In the eyes of the law, Vijay Mallya is not just a fugitive but a man with no defences left to offer.
(K Giriprakash is a business journalist and the author of the book on Vijay Mallya—The Vijay Mallya Story, published by Penguin Random House).
Next Story