Supreme Court Declines Lalit Modi's Plea to Direct BCCI to Indemnify Rs- 10.65 Cr FEMA Penalty

On 30^th June, 2025, Supreme Court declines Lalit Modi's plea to direct BCCI to indemnify Rs- 10.65 Cr FEMA penalty who is a former Indian cricket administrator and ex-chairman of the IPL—who had sought a directive compelling the BCCI to settle a Rs- 10.65 crore penalty imposed on him by the Enforcement Directorate for alleged violations under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA).

The case was heard by a vacation bench comprising Justices P. S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan. While turning down the request, the apex court clarified that Modi remains free to pursue legal remedies available under civil law and in accordance with constitutional procedures.

This appeal stemmed from an earlier order by the Bombay High Court dated December 19, 2024, which had already rejected the same petition. The High Court not only dismissed Modi’s arguments but also imposed a cost of Rs- 1 lakh on him, stating that the petition lacked any substantial legal grounding.

The High Court had emphasized that the FEMA penalty had been individually assessed against Modi, and there was no statutory or contractual basis for shifting that burden to the BCCI. It went on to label the petition as "frivolous and wholly misconceived."

In his argument before the High Court, Modi had claimed that the BCCI was obligated to cover such penalties under its internal rules. He pointed out that during his tenure as vice-president of the board and chairman of the IPL governing council—a sub-committee of BCCI—he was acting in an official capacity, and therefore, the organization was responsible for indemnifying him against penalties related to those duties.

However, the High Court dismissed this claim, noting that while internal bylaws may govern certain relationships within the BCCI, they do not automatically confer legal responsibility for individual regulatory penalties.

Additionally, the court referred to previous constitutional rulings, including the Zee Telefilms Ltd v. Union of India judgment, to reinforce that the BCCI does not fall under the category of “State” as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution. As such, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was deemed inapplicable in this case.

After reviewing the appeal, the Supreme Court saw no merit in interfering with the earlier decision and declined to provide any relief.

Case details- [Lalit Kumar Modi v. Board of Control for Cricket in India & Others, Diary No.?14199 of 2025, decided on June 30, 2025]