Lalit Modi vs BCCI: Supreme Court Rejects former IPL Chairman’s Plea Directing Cricketing Body to Pay ₹10.65 Crore FEMA Penalty

The origins of the case revolves around alleged financial irregularities during the 2009 Indian Premier League (IPL) season, which was held in South Africa due to general elections in India.

Know Practical Aspects of Tax Planning, CLICK HERE

The ensuing investigation by ED revealed unauthorized foreign exchange transactions exceeding ₹243 crore, leading to the imposition of a collective penalty of ₹121.56 crore on several officials, including former BCCI President N. Srinivasan and a penalty of ₹10.65 crore being slapped on Modi in his personal capacity.

Lalit Modi argued vehemently that by virtue of his position as the BCCI Vice President and Chairman of the IPL Governing Council at the time of the incident, he was entitled to indemnification under Rule 34 of the BCCI’s constitution. He further accused the cricketing body of selective indemnification, claiming other officials had received protection in similar circumstances.

In an earlier plea, the Bombay High Court had dismissed Modi’s claims against BCCI, branding the petition “frivolous and wholly misconceived.” The High Court bench cited the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India (2005), to reiterate that the BCCI does not constitute a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution and thus cannot be compelled under writ jurisdiction for matters unrelated to public function.

The present appeal was instituted before the Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan; Modi’s legal team acceded to interim relief granted to other former office bearers like Srinivasan in similar PMLA proceedings. Justice Narasimha pointedly queried Modi’s counsel on why Modi was not granted similar interim relief.

Despite the arguments presented, the apex court agreed with the Bombay High Court’s reasoning that the present case did not warrant the invocation of Article 226 as indemnification for penalties was unrelated to public function duties performed by BCCI.

Consequently, the Court disposed of Modi's Special Leave Petition, while clarifying that Modi retained the liberty to approach a civil court to seek appropriate remedies.

Affective Ways Of Tax Planning for HUF, Partnership Firm and Will - CLICK HERE

Modi, currently based in London since fleeing India in 2010 amid multiple controversies, is at the centre of multiple ongoing legal battles emanating from his tenure at the IPL, which he significantly popularized globally before his dramatic fall from grace.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates