Supreme Court declines Lalit Modi’s plea against BCCI, affirms no writ lies under Article 226.
SUPREME COURT REJECTS LALIT MODI’S BCCI INDEMNITY PLEA
Case in News
Supreme Court rejects Lalit Modi’s BCCI indemnity plea over ₹10.65 crore FEMA penalty request .
Case Overview
Case Name: Lalit Kumar Modi Versus Board Of Control For Cricket In India And ORS., Diary No. 14199-2025
On June 30, the Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Lalit Modi, former IPL Chairman, against BCCI seeking reimbursement of a ₹10.65 crore penalty imposed by the Enforcement Directorate under FEMA . The case was heard by Justice PS Narasimha and Justice R Mahadevan who held that BCCI is not “State” under Article 12 and not amenable to Article 226 jurisdiction for this relief .
Key Aspects
The key aspects of the case are as under –
- Modi was fined ₹10.65 crore by ED under FEMA for 2009 IPL-related financial irregularities .
- He invoked Rule 34 of BCCI’s constitution for indemnity, citing precedent with other officials .
- Bombay High Court had earlier rejected the plea and imposed ₹1 lakh cost, calling it “wholly misconceived.”
- Modi challenged this in the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition .
Legal Insights
The legal insights of the case are as under –
- Article 12 : BCCI not classified as “State” per Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005).
- Article 226 : Limited writ jurisdiction over BCCI only for public duties .
- Rule 34 of BCCI : Allows indemnity for officials discharging duties—central to Modi’s claim .
- FEMA, PMLA : Penalty and interim protection cited in related cases .
Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court declined relief under Article 226 affirming BCCI is not a “State.” However, it granted liberty to Lalit Modi to pursue a civil suit for indemnification . Petition was withdrawn accordingly .
Source- Supreme Court of India
Read also– Article 226 of Indian Constitution
