IPL 2009: SC Nixes Lalit Modi’s Plea for BCCI to Cover FEMA Penalty

In an order dated June 30, 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition filed by former IPL Chairman Lalit Modi, who sought a direction to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to indemnify him for a ₹10.65 crore penalty imposed for alleged contravention of provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA).[1]

Background

This case pertains to payments of over ₹243 Crore made to Cricket South Africa (CSA), with which the BCCI had entered into an agreement for hosting and staging the 2009 IPL season. The decision to shift the tournament’s venue to South Africa was made in light of the Indian state governments’ inability to provide security for the matches due to the upcoming general elections.

In May 2018, the Enforcement Directorate imposed penalties on BCCI and its concerned officials/office bearers, including Lalit Modi, in connection with said payments made without RBI’s permission, in violation of FEMA provisions. An appeal against this order is currently pending before the Appellate Tribunal, which, in May 2019, granted interim relief, directing BCCI to deposit ₹10 crore against the total penalty amount by way of a bank guarantee on behalf of itself, Lalit Modi, N. Srinivasan (then Secretary of BCCI) and M. P. Pandove (then Treasurer of BCCI). The next hearing before the Tribunal is scheduled for the following month.

Lalit Modi also filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court in 2018, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the BCCI to pay his share of the penalty to the Enforcement Directorate. He argued that the BCCI was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, as consistently held by courts in the past. He also claimed that the BCCI was required to indemnify him in terms of Rule 34 of the BCCI Rules and Regulations.

The High Court, however, held that no writ could be issued to the BCCI. It stated that in matters of alleged indemnification in the context of penalties imposed by the Enforcement Directorate, there was no question of discharge of any public function. The petition was accordingly dismissed in December 2024 as frivolous, with costs.

Supreme Court’s Decision

The High Court’s order was then challenged before the Supreme Court, which dismissed the special leave petition. However, it was made clear that the petitioner was entitled to pursue any civil remedies available to him in accordance with the law.

[1] Lalit Kumar Modi v. Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors. [SLP(C) No.17267 of 2025].