SC rejects Lalit Modi's plea seeking BCCI to pay ₹10.65 cr ED penalty

Supreme Court dismisses Lalit Modi's plea to make BCCI pay ₹10.65 crore Fema penalty; says he may pursue civil remedies

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea by former cricket administrator Lalit Modi, who had sought a direction to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to pay a ₹10.65 crore penalty imposed on him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (Fema), reported news agency PTI.

 

A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan upheld the Bombay High Court’s earlier decision, which had rejected Modi’s petition and imposed costs, but clarified that Modi may pursue appropriate civil remedies if he chooses.

 

Bombay HC called petition frivolous and misconceived

 

The case stemmed from a December 19, 2023, ruling by the Bombay High Court, which dismissed Lalit Modi’s plea as “frivolous and misconceived” and directed him to pay ₹1 lakh to Tata Memorial Hospital within four weeks.

 

 

The high court held that the Fema penalty had been imposed on Modi in his personal capacity and not in connection with any public function or statutory duty. Therefore, the court found no legal basis for asking the BCCI to bear the penalty on his behalf.

 

Modi had argued that during his tenure as BCCI vice-president and chairman of the Indian Premier League (IPL) governing council, the board was bound to indemnify him under its internal regulations. He maintained that the penalty arose from actions carried out in his official capacity. 

 

No writ against BCCI under Article 12

 

In rejecting his claim, the high court cited a 2005 Supreme Court judgment which clarified that the BCCI does not fall under the definition of ‘state’ under Article 12 of the Constitution. As a result, a writ petition could not be maintained against the cricket board. 

 

The high court also observed that despite this legal position being well established, Modi filed the petition in 2018 seeking a writ remedy that was not available in law.