The Westminster magistrates court in United Kingdom is set to give its verdict on Vijay Mallya’s extradition to India on Monday, but the businessman accused of fleeing the country after defaulting on loans is unlikely to return to India anytime soon.

Monday’s judgement may or may not be on the lines expected in New Delhi, but even if judge Emma Arbuthnot rules that there are no legal bars to his extradition and recommends it to the home secretary, Mallya (and India) will have opportunities to appeal in higher courts.

Besides, depending on the timing and how the Brexit imbroglio unfolds, he could also approach the European Court of Justice, which is known to be lenient on grounds of human rights. The final decision to extradite rests with the home secretary.

Sought by India in connection with defaulting of bank loans running into thousands of crores, Mallya’s case essentially revolves around whether there is a prima facie case against him, and whether it amounts to a crime according to the laws of both countries .

The amount outstanding against Mallya has been mentioned as over Rs 9,000 crore, but the case documents mention the alleged dishonest obtaining of loans “in the amounts of Rs 1,500 million, Rs 2,000 million and Rs 7,500 million during October and November 2009”.

While Mallya’s team insists there is no prima facie case and that the inability to return loans to his now defunct Kingfisher Airlines was due to a “genuine business failure”, India has alleged “three chapters of dishonesty” on his part.

The “three chapters”, according to lawyer Mark Summers representing India, are alleged misrepresentations made to banks to secure loans, what was done with the loans secured, and what Mallya and his companies did when banks recalled the loans.

Some of the words and phrases used by Summers in court were: “squirreling away” of funds, “playing round robin” by moving funds across banks, and “malafide intentions” on the part of Mallya and his companies.

Besides the ground of risk to human rights in Indian prisons, Mallya’s team has stated in the court that he has offered to settle with the banks, but also claimed that he is sought for political considerations in India, where he would also be subjected to “media trials”.

Four expert witnesses presented by Mallya’s team raised questions and doubts about the state of banking, prisons, politics and the judicial system in India. The conditions, they alleged, would not only pose a risk to his human rights but also amount to “extraneous considerations” and “abuse of process”.

India submitted thousands of pages of documents that needed to be carted in trolleys; Mallya’s team produced a similar number of documents.

A highlight of the hearings in the Westminster magistrate court has been the ways in which the Indian news media figured inside and outside the court. Mallya used the opportunity provided by live television to present his version of the narrative.

At every hearing, a media scrum would gather outside the court when Mallya arrived, again during lunch break when he would step out for a break, and then again as he left the court premises. On some occasions he appeared pensive and tense, but mostly seemed to enjoy the attention.

Martin Lau, a law expert and Mallya’s witness, said: “There is increasing concern in India about media trials. There has been a proliferation of television channels, panel discussions with powerful TV commentators. They are liable to influence all aspects of trial. There is intense media interest in India in this case.”

“There is a competitive news market. Inaccuracies would be pointed out by rival newspapers. Communication between the government is accessed by journalists in India as in other countries, through informal networks of individuals or leaks,” he said.