SC rejects Lalit Modi’s plea seeking BCCI to pay ₹10.65 cr FEMA penalty
A Bench of Justices P. S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan, however, clarified that Modi will be entitled to avail civil remedies as available according to law.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea filed by former cricket administrator Lalit Modi seeking an order to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to pay a penalty of ₹10.65 crore imposed on him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for violating the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA).
A Bench of Justices P. S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan, however, clarified that Modi will be entitled to avail civil remedies as available according to law.
Earlier, on December 19, 2023, the Bombay High Court had imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on Modi while dismissing his petition seeking the same relief. The high court ruled that the petition was “frivolous and wholly misconceived” as the adjudication authority under FEMA had imposed the penalty on Modi in his personal capacity.
During Monday’s hearing, the Supreme Court posed a direct question to Modi’s counsel: “Why have they not given it (interim relief) to you?”
To this, the lawyer responded: “It is personal... But in all fairness, when I filed it before an appellate authority of PMLA — not only was I a party but Mr. N Srinivasan and other officers were also parties. The interim order protects these people on the same footing, saying that BCCI should deposit ₹10 crore. That order is also placed on record.”
In his plea, Modi had argued that he was serving as vice president of the BCCI and chairman of the Indian Premier League (IPL) governing body — a subcommittee of the BCCI — at the time of the alleged violation. He claimed that BCCI was obligated to indemnify him under its bylaws.
“All I am saying is that, today, in case that appeal is not held in my favour — ultimately it is an interim order — I may at least be relegated to a civil suit,” Modi’s counsel submitted.
The Court agreed, stating: “Then we will say that... You withdraw this, your rights are kept intact to approach the court by filing civil suit.”
Accordingly, the plea before the apex court was disposed of. The official order read: “Counsel for Lalit Modi very fairly stated that even if the petition under Article 226 is not maintainable, the appellant should be entitled to avail civil remedies... Recording this statement, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.”
The Bombay High Court had, in its ruling, cited a 2005 Supreme Court judgment stating that the BCCI does not fall under the definition of a “state” under Article 12 of the Constitution. The HC noted that “despite clear orders from the apex court, Modi filed this petition in 2018.”
It added: “In matters of alleged indemnification of the petitioner [Modi] 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 any event, the reliefs are wholly misconceived. This petition is frivolous, and accordingly, we dismiss this petition,” the court concluded, directing Modi to pay ₹1 lakh to Tata Memorial Hospital within four weeks.
