On June 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued a landmark judgment dismissing a petition filed by Lalit Modi, the former IPL Commissioner, which sought to compel the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to indemnify him for a ₹10.65 crore penalty imposed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999. This ruling establishes a firm legal precedent concerning individual accountability for statutory violations, it reaffirms the limited scope of writ jurisdiction over private bodies, and strengthens India’s position in pursuing extradition against absconding economic offenders such as Modi, who has lived in self‑imposed exile in the United Kingdom since 2010.
As the founding Chairman and Commissioner of the Indian Premier League (IPL), which was launched in 2008, Modi revolutionized the sport by introducing a franchise-based model coupled with intense commercialization, sponsorships, and lucrative broadcast deals. The league achieved meteoric success within its first season. Yet, it was this same success that laid bare a labyrinth of financial structures, many involving foreign exchange transactions, during the 2009 edition of the IPL, which was shifted to South Africa to avoid coinciding with India’s general elections. The complexity of foreign remittances and broadcasting arrangements during that season triggered an investigation by the ED.
In 2010, the ED initiated formal proceedings, focusing on alleged violations of FEMA regulations, while simultaneously, the BCCI suspended Modi and, in 2013, imposed a lifetime ban citing conflicts of interest and corruption. Around this time, Modi relocated to London, citing threats to his personal safety, and later acquired Vanuatuan citizenship. Over the next decade and a half, he became the subject of a multi-pronged criminal and civil investigation by Indian authorities including the ED and the Income Tax Department. Despite multiple ED summonses and Interpol communications, Modi remained outside India, reinforcing his free movement abroad.
In 2018, the ED issued a ₹10.65 crore penalty against Modi pursuant to FEMA, for facilitating alleged unauthorized foreign exchange dealings connected to IPL Season 2. While Modi did not dispute the underlying factual transactions, he asserted that they were executed in his capacity as IPL chairman and BCCI Vice-President. He further contended that the BCCI, under its Constitution and particularly Rule 34, has an obligation to indemnify him for liabilities incurred in carrying out official duties. That rule, he argued, had provided indemnity in previous cases with other office-bearers who faced legal challenges in their roles.
Modi’s legal strategy unfolded in stages. In response to the ED’s penalty order, he filed a petition before the Bombay High Court in December 2023, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the BCCI to cover the FEMA penalty. The Division Bench, however, dismissed the petition as “frivolous and wholly misconceived,” and imposed ₹1 lakh costs on him. The High Court determined that FEMA penalties were personal obligations and that BCCI’s internal indemnity provisions did not extend to statutorily imposed fines. It further held that writs could not be issued against a private body like the BCCI.
Shortly thereafter, Modi moved to the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition, seeking constitutional relief under Articles 226 and 32. The Supreme Court, in its June 30, 2025 judgment, once again reiterated that BCCI is not a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution and, accordingly, cannot be subjected to writ jurisdiction except in very limited contexts involving public functions. The Court cited its earlier ruling in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) to clarify that private entities even if they hold wide public sway, remain outside the ambit of constitutional writs if they do not perform formal governmental functions.
On the issue of indemnification, the Court decisively ruled that the FEMA-imposed penalty was personal in nature, with no statutory or contractual basis to transfer that liability to the BCCI. The Court emphasized that while Modi may rely on Rule 34 of the BCCI Constitution in a civil suit, the present remedy under writ jurisdiction was inappropriate. This view was echoed in a detailed analysis by Bar & Bench, which noted that the Court encouraged Modi to pursue a conventional civil remedy, stating that contractual indemnity cannot be enforced via a constitutional writ.
Moreover, the Court clarified that FEMA liability is a personal one and not a liability that can be delegated or transferred to a third party, even an institution on whose behalf the transactions were allegedly carried out. The Court firmly concluded that writs of mandamus cannot be used to enforce indemnity clauses, particularly in the context of a private regulatory body such as the BCCI, reiterating the constitutional separation between personal culpability and institutional affiliation.
The Supreme Court’s rejection of Modi’s arguments closes off a constitutional shortcut that might have shifted the burden of a statutory fine onto the cricketing body. It also subtly rebuked the use of litigation as a tool to avoid legal responsibilities while physically outside India’s jurisdiction. The Court’s remarks, described in LiveLaw’s report, indicated growing judicial impatience with economic fugitives who attempt to gain judicial benefits without submitting themselves to Indian legal processes.
The judgment’s ramifications are especially relevant in the context of India’s broader battle against fugitive economic offenders. Since 2018, Modi has been listed among high-profile targets under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018, which permits the seizure of domestic and overseas assets belonging to economic offenders evading Indian courts. Modi’s case was earlier mired in international complications. His original extradition process from the UK was obstructed by appeals to the European Convention on Human Rights, with UK courts historically expressing concern over India’s penal infrastructure and procedural safeguards.
However, the Court’s present ruling, which frames the liability as individual and disconnected from political animus, undermines Modi’s long-standing assertion of political persecution. This narrative, which once played a central role in his defense against Interpol Red Corner Notices and UK extradition hearings, now stands on fragile ground. With the Supreme Court’s clarity, India’s legal position is notably stronger in pressing Modi’s extradition case forward.
Looking ahead, if Modi pursues the civil litigation route, the evidentiary burden will be steep. He would have to demonstrate a direct contractual entitlement to indemnity, supported by board minutes, internal approvals, and past precedent. The mere existence of a broad indemnity clause would not suffice, particularly if that clause was never formally invoked or ratified by the BCCI board concerning FEMA proceedings. In parallel, Indian authorities can cite this ruling to argue for Modi’s removal from the UK under existing treaties, emphasizing that all constitutional and legal remedies have been exhausted.
Meanwhile, the judgment could enable the ED to escalate action under FEMA and the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, including attachment of Modi’s Indian assets and a formal designation as a fugitive. This would tighten the web of legal restrictions around his financial activity and further isolate him internationally. Indian diplomatic and legal teams may now rely on this Supreme Court judgment to revise and strengthen their filings before UK authorities, removing prior ambiguities that weakened India’s legal requests.
From Modi’s perspective, the options appear limited. He can either pay the ₹10.65 crore penalty and attempt to move on or challenge the indemnity clause through conventional litigation, which could drag on for years. In the meantime, remaining abroad only intensifies the consequences. His international standing as a businessperson and sports administrator is increasingly affected by his status as a fugitive economic offender, with new doors closing as the legal pressure mounts.
In sum, this ruling sends a clear message: “No individual, however prominent or institutionally supported, stands above statutory responsibility.” It binds Modi to statutory accountability, closes procedural loopholes that enabled his detached defense, and frames him as a fugitive economic offender in both national and international registers. For policymakers, practitioners, and scholars, this episode reinforces the confluence of constitutional jurisdiction limits, financial regulatory authority, and transnational legal diplomacy in the digital age.
Reported by: Palak Chhabra, who is a student of Jindal Global Law School.
