Former IPL chairman Lalit Modi was granted permission by the Supreme Court on Monday to seek civil remedies against the BCCI for payment of penalties totaling over ₹10 crore under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA).

Modi filed a petition against a judgment made by the Bombay High Court on December 19, 2024, which rejected his writ petition and maintained that a writ petition could not be brought against the BCCI. A bench of justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan issued the order.

"The BCCI has been deemed a 'state' for practical purposes pertaining to cricket," the court stated. "It cannot be equivalent to state for recoveries."

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) assessed the punishment against BCCI, Modi, and other office bearers, claiming that BCCI's remittances for hosting the 2009 IPL season in South Africa violated FEMA. Modi was fined a total of ₹10.65 crore, while other office holders were assessed varying penalties. The BCCI was fined more than ₹82 crore. When it mattered, Modi served as the IPL chairman and BCCI vice president.

This was a case of discrimination by the BCCI, which had indemnified the penalty against BCCI secretary N Srinivasan and treasurer MP Pandove, but had not granted Modi the same protection, according to Modi's attorney, advocate Vikas Mehta.

"Why have they refused it to you? When asked if it was a personal matter, Mehta said, "Yes." It's a personal matter. "The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondent (BCCI) in as much as the respondent has acted in a discriminatory manner by indemnifying N Srinivasan and MP Pandove against the penalty imposed on them vide order dated August 31, 2018 of the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)," Modi stated in his petition.

In accordance with Rule 34 of the BCCI's Rules and Regulations to Memorandum of Association, which requires the Board to use its funds to indemnify the office bearers for any losses or expenditures they may have suffered in the course of carrying out their official duties, Mehta cited the rule.

In his petition, Mehta stated that Modi was carrying out his official responsibilities as vice-president of the BCCI and chairman of the IPL when the choice was made collectively by the BCCI to move the IPL games to South Africa. "It is pertinent to note that the said decisions were unanimous and no decision was made by the petitioner in his personal capacity," the petition stated.

Modi's plea was rejected by the High Court with a fine of ₹1 lakh. "There is no question of discharge of any public function in matters of alleged indemnification of the petitioner in the context of penalties imposed upon the petitioner by the ED," it stated, "and therefore, for this purpose, no writ could be issued to the BCCI."

The charge imposed on Mehta was paid, but the judgment against BCCI was challenged. Mehta's request to seek civil remedies by filing a case was granted by the highest court. "The counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that the petitioner will be entitled to avail civil remedies as per law even if the petition under Article 226 is not maintainable. The petition is disposed of after recording this statement," the order reads.

On April 26, 2010, Modi was banned from the BCCI. From 2007 until 2010, he served as the IPL's chairman and from 2005 until 2010, he was the vice president of BCCI.

Read Also: Medvedev’s Wimbledon Woes, Alcaraz’s Gritty Escape

Get the latest Bollywood entertainment news, trending celebrity news, latest celebrity news, new movie reviews, latest entertainment news, latest Bollywood news, and Bollywood celebrity fashion & style updates!

HOW DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE? CHOOSE YOUR EMOTICON!