Supreme Court Declines Lalit Modi’s Plea To Direct BCCI To Indemnify ₹10.65 Cr FEMA Penalty
The Supreme Court docket right this moment (June 30) declined to entertain a writ petition filed by former IPL Chairman Lalit Kumar Modi in opposition to the Board of Management for Cricket in India (BCCI), searching for indemnification for a ₹10.65 crore penalty imposed on him by the Enforcement Directorate underneath the Overseas Trade Administration Act (FEMA).
The matter was listed earlier than the partial court docket working days bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan, which on the outset noticed that the BCCI (Board of Management for Cricket in India) shouldn’t be a “State” underneath Article 12 of the Structure and therefore circuitously amenable to writ jurisdiction underneath Article 226, besides in sure restricted useful public duties like organizing sports activities occasions.
The dispute arises from a penalty of ₹10.65 crore imposed on Modi by the Enforcement Directorate underneath the Overseas Trade Administration Act (FEMA) in reference to alleged monetary irregularities through the 2009 IPL season held in South Africa.
Modi sought indemnification from the BCCI underneath Rule 34 of its structure, which supplies for reimbursement of authorized bills or liabilities incurred by officers whereas discharging their duties. Nevertheless, the Bombay Excessive Court docket dismissed his plea in December 2024, terming it “wholly misconceived” and imposed ₹1 lakh in prices. The Excessive Court docket noticed that “In issues of alleged indemnification of the petitioner within the context of penalties imposed upon the petitioner by the ED, there is no such thing as a query of discharge of any public operate, and subsequently, for this objective, no writ might be issued to the BCCI.“
“In Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2005 4 SCC 649, the Hon’ble Supreme Court docket has held that the BCCI doesn’t reply the definition of ‘State’ inside the which means assigned to this time period underneath Article 12 of the Structure of India. Due to this fact, this petition and the reliefs searched for it are usually not maintainable.”, the Excessive Court docket added.
Difficult the Excessive Court docket’s resolution, Modi filed a Particular Depart Petition earlier than the Supreme Court docket, contending that the BCCI is legally sure to indemnify him, simply because it has completed for different former office-bearers in related circumstances.
Counsel for Modi argued that Article 226 can nonetheless apply, citing previous precedents the place BCCI’s actions had been topic to judicial scrutiny. He pressured that Rule 34 of the BCCI structure, which supplies for indemnity of office-bearers for actions taken in official capability, helps his declare for reimbursement of the ₹10.65 crore FEMA penalty imposed on him.
The Court docket requested pointedly why the BCCI denied Modi this indemnity. Modi’s counsel clarified that related indemnity had been granted to different officers, comparable to N. Srinivasan, in associated proceedings earlier than the appellate authority underneath the PMLA, the place interim safety had been prolonged to all office-bearers equally.
“One truth my lord, however I have to level out in all equity that once I filed an enchantment earlier than the appellate authority of PMLA, not solely was I’m a celebration, however Mr. Srinivasan and the opposite officers had been additionally a celebration. There the interim order protects these folks on the identical footing saying that BCCI ought to deposit 10 crores.”, Modi’s counsel contended.
Nevertheless, acknowledging that the current reduction sought won’t be tenable underneath Article 226, the Court docket prompt that Modi could pursue a civil swimsuit for indemnification. The Court docket recorded that even when writ reduction shouldn’t be obtainable, the petitioner retains the appropriate to avail civil treatments, and provided him the chance to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue acceptable authorized treatments.
“if a petition underneath Article 226 shouldn’t be made obtainable, the appellant ought to be entitled to avail civil treatments. It’s true that the appellant might be entitled to avail such civil treatments as could also be obtainable to him…”, the court docket mentioned.
Case Title: LALIT KUMAR MODI Versus BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA AND ORS., Diary No. 14199-2025
