The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed former IPL Chairman Lalit Modi’s plea to direct 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 alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). The court said Modi is free to pursue remedies under civil law but it would not compel the BCCI to pay the amount.

The dispute stems from a penalty imposed on Modi by the ED in connection with alleged financial irregularities during the 2009 IPL season held in South Africa.

In his plea, Modi sought indemnification from the BCCI under Rule 34 of its constitution, which provides for reimbursement of legal expenses or liabilities incurred by officials while discharging their duties.

However, the Bombay High Court had dismissed his plea in December 2024, terming it “wholly misconceived” and imposing ?1 lakh in costs.

Modi then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, arguing that the BCCI is legally bound to indemnify him, as it has done for other former office-bearers in similar circumstances.

He submitted that Article 226 can apply, citing past precedents where BCCI’s actions were subject to judicial scrutiny. He stressed that Rule 34 of the BCCI constitution, which allows indemnity for office-bearers acting in official capacity, supports his claim for reimbursement of the ?10.65 crore FEMA penalty.

Article 226 of the Indian Constitution grants High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental and other legal rights.

A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and R Mahadevan on Monday observed that the BCCI is not a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution and hence is not directly amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, except in limited instances involving public duties such as organising sports events.

While writs are generally issued against the State, they may also be directed at entities performing public functions.

The Court suggested that Modi may pursue a civil suit for indemnification and offered him the opportunity to withdraw the petition with liberty to explore other legal remedies.

 “If a petition under Article 226 is not made available, the appellant should be entitled to avail civil remedies. It is true that the appellant will be entitled to avail such civil remedies as may be available to him,” the court said.