The Supreme Court has granted Lalit Modi the opportunity to pursue civil remedies against the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) regarding a penalty imposed on him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). This decision comes after the court rejected Modi's plea seeking to compel the BCCI to pay a ₹10.65 crore penalty levied on him for violations of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA).
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan addressed Modi's appeal challenging the Bombay High Court's dismissal of his plea. The High Court had previously termed Modi's petition "frivolous and wholly misconceived," and had imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on him. The original plea sought directions to the BCCI to pay the ₹10.65 crore penalty, which the ED had imposed on Modi for alleged FEMA violations related to the 2009 season of the Indian Premier League (IPL).
Lalit Modi's counsel argued before the Supreme Court that the matter could be subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further stated that in appellate proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), others who were also penalized by the ED, including former BCCI chief N Srinivasan, had received interim relief. Modi's lawyer argued that if his appeal was not successful, he should be allowed to pursue a civil suit.
The Supreme Court clarified that while it would not direct the BCCI to pay the penalty, Modi could seek civil remedies as available under the law. The court disposed of Modi's appeal against the Bombay High Court's decision, upholding the dismissal but allowing him the option to approach a civil court. The Bombay High Court had stated that the penalty was imposed personally on Lalit Modi by the adjudicating authority under FEMA, and there was no legal basis to direct the BCCI to pay the fine.
Modi had contended that as the former IPL commissioner, the penalty arose from actions taken during his tenure with the cricket board. He argued that the BCCI, under its bylaws, was obligated to indemnify him for actions taken in his official capacity as vice-president of the BCCI and chairman of its IPL governing council at the time of the alleged FEMA violations.
The Bombay High Court, in its earlier verdict, had relied on a previous court decision, Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors, stating that the BCCI does not fall under the definition of 'State' as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the petition was not maintainable. The High Court also noted that Modi's petition was instituted in 2018, despite previous rulings that the BCCI is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court further stated that there was no question of discharging any public function in the matter of alleged indemnification of Modi in the context of penalties imposed by the ED, and therefore, no writ could be issued to the BCCI. The High Court directed Modi to deposit ₹1 lakh as costs to the Tata Memorial Hospital, deeming the reliefs sought as wholly misconceived.
