The Supreme Court on June 30 dismissed the writ petition filed by former IPL Chairman Lalit Kumar Modi seeking indemnification of a ₹10.65 crore penalty imposed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). Modi had filed the plea against the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), invoking Article 226 of the Constitution.
The case was heard by a bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan, which at the outset clarified:
“The BCCI is not a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 except in limited public duties.”
The penalty was linked to alleged financial irregularities during the 2009 IPL season in South Africa. Modi contended that under Rule 34 of the BCCI Constitution, he was entitled to indemnification for liabilities incurred while discharging his duties as an office-bearer.
Read also: Supreme Court to Hear Plea Against Maratha Reservation in July
However, this argument was previously dismissed by the Bombay High Court in December 2024, which termed the plea as “wholly misconceived” and imposed ₹1 lakh in costs. The High Court observed:
“In matters of alleged indemnification by the ED, there is no public function involved. Hence, no writ lies against BCCI for such claims.”
It further relied on the precedent:
“In Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors., 2005 4 SCC 649, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that BCCI is not a ‘State’ under Article 12. Thus, no relief sought in this writ petition is maintainable.”
Read also: NEET-PG 2024: Petition in Supreme Court Against Conversion of Chandigarh UT Quota to All India
Following the High Court's dismissal, Modi approached the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition (SLP), insisting that BCCI had in the past indemnified other office-bearers like N. Srinivasan in similar matters under PMLA proceedings.
During arguments, Modi's counsel submitted:
“In proceedings before the PMLA appellate authority, interim protection was granted equally to all office-bearers, and the BCCI was directed to deposit ₹10 crore. Mr. Srinivasan was similarly covered.”
Read also: Supreme Court Refuses to Grant Bail to PFI Leader AS Ismail on Medical Grounds, Seeks Report on
However, the apex court maintained that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not applicable in this case. Instead, it advised Modi to explore civil remedies for indemnification.
“If a petition under Article 226 is not maintainable, the appellant is still entitled to pursue civil remedies as may be available to him,” the court said.
The Supreme Court thus permitted Modi to withdraw the petition with liberty to initiate appropriate civil proceedings.
Case Title: LALIT KUMAR MODI Versus BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA AND ORS., Diary No. 14199-2025
