Supreme Court Declines Lalit Modi's Plea To Direct BCCI To Indemnify ₹10.65 Cr FEMA Penalty

The Supreme Court today (June 30) declined to entertain a writ petition filed by former IPL Chairman Lalit Kumar Modi against the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), seeking indemnification for a ₹10.65 crore penalty imposed on him by the Enforcement Directorate under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA).

The matter was listed before the partial court working days bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan, which at the outset observed that the BCCI (Board of Control for Cricket in India) is not a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution and hence not directly amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, except in certain limited functional public duties like organizing sports events.

The dispute arises from a penalty of ₹10.65 crore imposed on Modi by the Enforcement Directorate under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) in connection with alleged financial irregularities during the 2009 IPL season held in South Africa.

Modi sought indemnification from the BCCI under Rule 34 of its constitution, which provides for reimbursement of legal expenses or liabilities incurred by officials while discharging their duties. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed his plea in December 2024, terming it “wholly misconceived” and imposed ₹1 lakh in costs. The High Court observed that "In matters of alleged indemnification of the petitioner in the context of penalties imposed upon the petitioner by the ED, there is no question of discharge of any public function, and therefore, for this purpose, no writ could be issued to the BCCI."

"In Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2005 4 SCC 649, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the BCCI does not answer the definition of 'State' within the meaning assigned to this term under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this petition and the reliefs sought for it are not maintainable.", the High Court added.

Challenging the High Court's decision, Modi filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, contending that the BCCI is legally bound to indemnify him, just as it has done for other former office-bearers in similar circumstances.

Counsel for Modi argued that Article 226 can still apply, citing past precedents where BCCI's actions were subject to judicial scrutiny. He stressed that Rule 34 of the BCCI constitution, which provides for indemnity of office-bearers for actions taken in official capacity, supports his claim for reimbursement of the ₹10.65 crore FEMA penalty imposed on him.

The Court asked pointedly why the BCCI denied Modi this indemnity. Modi's counsel clarified that similar indemnity had been granted to other officials, such as N. Srinivasan, in related proceedings before the appellate authority under the PMLA, where interim protection had been extended to all office-bearers equally.

“One fact my lord, but I must point out in all fairness that when I filed an appeal before the appellate authority of PMLA, not only was I am a party, but Mr. Srinivasan and the other officers were also a party. There the interim order protects these people on the same footing saying that BCCI should deposit 10 crores.”, Modi's counsel contended.

However, acknowledging that the present relief sought might not be tenable under Article 226, the Court suggested that Modi may pursue a civil suit for indemnification. The Court recorded that even if writ relief is not available, the petitioner retains the right to avail civil remedies, and offered him the opportunity to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue appropriate legal remedies.

“if a petition under Article 226 is not made available, the appellant should be entitled to avail civil remedies. It is true that the appellant will be entitled to avail such civil remedies as may be available to him…”, the court said.

Case Title: LALIT KUMAR MODI Versus BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA AND ORS., Diary No. 14199-2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order