Supreme Court rejects Lalit Modi's plea asking BCCI to pay ₹10.65 crore FEMA penalty
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed former cricket administrator Lalit Modi's plea seeking an order directing 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).
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and R Mahadevan ruled that Lalit Modi could pursue civil remedies available under the law but refused to compel the BCCI to bear the penalty amount.
This Supreme Court decision follows a December 19, 2023, ruling by the Bombay High Court which had termed Lalit Modi's petition 'frivolous and wholly misconceived,' while imposing a cost of ₹ 1 lakh on him.
The Bombay High Court had observed that the penalty was personally imposed on Lalit Modi by the adjudicating authority under FEMA, and there was no legal basis to direct the BCCI to pay the fine.
Lalit Modi had contended that during his tenure as the BCCI's vice-president and chairman of the Indian Premier League (IPL) governing council—a subcommittee of the BCCI—the board was obliged under its bylaws to indemnify him for actions taken in his official capacity.
However, the Bombay High Court referred to a 2005 Supreme Court judgment clarifying that the BCCI does not qualify as a 'state' under Article 12 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Bombay HC held that no writ could be issued against the BCCI in matters unrelated to the discharge of public functions.
'In matters of alleged indemnification of the petitioner in the context of penalties imposed by the ED, there is no question of discharge of any public function, and therefore, for this purpose, no writ could be issued to the BCCI,' the High Court had stated.
Despite clear directions from the Supreme Court, Lalit Modi had filed the petition in 2018, which the High Court dismissed. The Supreme Court on Monday, 30 June, upheld this dismissal, reiterating that Lalit Modi's plea was without merit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Trump's lawyer says no immediate deportations under birthright citizenship order, as judges to decide on challenges
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Also Read: US Supreme Court may rule on allowing enforcement of Trump birthright citizenship limits Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Popular in NRI Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads President Donald Trump 's administration will not deport children deemed ineligible for US citizenship until his executive order curtailing birthright citizenship takes effect on July 27, a government lawyer said on Monday after being pressed by two federal separate hearings in lawsuits challenging Trump's order, US District Judges Deborah Boardman in Greenbelt, Maryland, and Joseph LaPlante in Concord, New Hampshire, set expedited schedules to decide whether the order can be blocked again on grounds that the US Supreme Court 's ruling on Friday curbing the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide does not preclude injunctions in class action judges asked US Department of Justice lawyer Brad Rosenberg, who represented the government in both cases, for assurances that the Trump administration would not move to deport children who do not have at least one parent who is a US citizen or legal permanent resident at least until the executive order takes said it would not, which Boardman and LaPlante respectively asked him to confirm in writing by Tuesday and the Maryland case, immigrant rights advocates revised their lawsuit just a few hours after the 6-3 conservative majority US Supreme Court on Friday ruled in their case and two others challenging Trump's executive order. The New Hampshire lawsuit, a proposed class action, was filed on Supreme Court ruling did not address the merits or legality of Trump's birthright citizenship order, but instead curbed the ability of judges to issue "universal" injunctions to block the Republican president's policies while the Supreme Court restricted the ability of judges to issue injunctions that cover anyone other than the parties appearing before them, Justice Amy Coney Barrett's opinion held out the possibility that opponents of a federal policy could still obtain the same type of relief if they instead pursued cases as class Powell, a lawyer for immigration rights groups and pregnant non-citizen mothers pursuing the case, told Boardman at a hearing on Monday that an immediate ruling was necessary to address the fears and concerns migrants now face as a result of the Supreme Court's decision."They want to see how fast we can get class relief because they are afraid about their children and their babies and what their status might be," Powell executive order, which he issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of US-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" Friday's ruling, the high court narrowed the scope of the three injunctions issued by federal judges in three states, including Boardman, that prevented enforcement of his directive nationwide while litigation challenging the policy played judges had blocked the policy after siding with Democratic-led states and immigrant rights advocates who argued it violated the citizenship clause of the US Constitution's 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to recognize that virtually anyone born in the United States is a rights advocates in the hours after the Supreme Court ruled swiftly launched two separate bids in Maryland and New Hampshire to have judges grant class-wide relief on behalf of any children nationally who would be deemed ineligible for birthright citizenship under Trump's Supreme Court specified the core part of Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. Boardman on Monday pressed Rosenberg on what it could do before then."Just to get to the heart of it, I want to know if the government thinks that it can start removing children from the United States who are subject to the terms of the executive order," Boardman said at the end of the scheduled further briefing in the case to continue through July 9, with a ruling to follow. LaPlante scheduled a hearing for July said the Trump administration objected to the plaintiffs' attempt to obtain the same relief through a class action. He stood by the administration's view of the constitutionality of Trump's order."It is the position of the United States government that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed by the Constitution," he said.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Cricket board a state for regulating game but not for recovery process: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain former IPL chairperson Lalit Modi 's plea for a direction to Board for Control of Cricket in India to foot the Rs 10 crore fine imposed on him for FEMA violations during IPL second season organised in South Africa in adjudicating authority in May 2018 had held BCCI and its office bearers liable under various provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) and imposed fines of Rs 82.7 crore on BCCI, Rs 10 crore on Lalit Modi, Rs 11.5 crore on N Srinivasan (then honorary secretary of BCCI), 9.72 crore on MP Pandove (then treasurer) and Rs 7 crore on State Bank of Travancore (now merged with SBI).Appearing for Modi, advocate Vikas Mehta told a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan that as per the Rules and Regulations to Memorandum of Association, BCCI was to indemnify its office bearers against all losses and expenses incurred by them during the discharge of their official said BCCI has indemnified Srinivasan and Pandove against the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority in May 2018 but has not yet responded to his request for similar treatment.'There is no basis to distinguish the case of the Petitioner from that of Pandove and Srinivasan by BCCI,' Modi said in his petition challenging Bombay HC's decision not to entertain his writ petition. HC had imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on bench said Bombay HC had rightly rejected Modi's writ petition as it is not maintainable since BCCI is not a state when it comes to civil proceedings, including recovery of money. Justice Narasimha-led bench said, 'BCCI is a state in relation to regulating and conducting the game of cricket in India and hence writ petition could be maintainable only when it related to these two aspects of cricket.'It said that Modi would have the option of approaching civil courts for recovery of the money from the BCCI. Modi's counsel withdrew the petition to approach civil the alleged financial irregularities during the conduct of IPL second season in South Africa in collaboration with Cricket South Africa (CSA), BCCI had initially suspended Modi as IPL chairperson and then expelled him from BCCI in 2010. Some might call the game of cricket a bat-and-ball game. While the definition may have worked back in the 16th century when it was first played in South-East England, it may receive unfavourable support now. We are now living in the 21 st century, and as things have undergone changes, evolution so to speak, the gentleman's game too has evolved into becoming something bigger. Though initially stated to be a children's game by historians, the game has only gone on to become sophisticated and technical, and hence no longer just a game of bat-and-ball. In order to celebrate what we have currently, we ought to honour the past as well. And to take a little walk down the line in regard to the game of cricket, we go to England in the old days. Although cricket now attracts money from all corners, it started its journey as a low-profile sport not pursued by many. Slowly and gradually, the game started getting its recognition. Since then, cricket has also been able to create a junction where different category of people could compete, but most importantly enjoy the same sport. The same movement was triggered in India, when the East India Company introduced to game to the Indian masses. The revered Bombay Quadrangular (held from 1912 to 1936) is one such example. The longest format of the game, Test cricket, has continued to exist even after so many years. In the early 1960s, and once again the story moves to England and its counties, the need for a limited overs format was discussed. The changes were duly made, both domestically and internationally. This meant that the sport would now have a World Cup of its own. When we talk about limited overs format, we are only talking about One day internationals right now since the very popular T20 cricket comes much later in the timeline. The main reason why One Day internationals became a popular choice was because by the end of the game, you surely had just one winner. This paved way for the cricket world cup, which has been played every four years since 1975, with few exceptions in between. During this time, there was a rise in cricket governing bodies. With a new format, there were new teams. The figures were only to increase, with the entry of the shortest format of the game, T20s. Originally introduced by the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB), T20 games were introduced in 2003 for the inter-county competition. The first men's international T20 match was played between Australia and New Zealand in February 2005 in Auckland. The newest format, the shortest one on the list, provided astonishing moments. One can think about India's win in the inaugural T20 World Cup in 2007, a campaign which included remarkable moments. The game of cricket, whenever altered to provide something new, always leads to a new option. With T20, cricket's own club competition system was introduced. Twenty-twenty gave birth to franchise T20 leagues around the world. The Indian Premier League (IPL), one of the flagship T20 leagues, is probably the best example. This gave fans a chance to watch thrillers on the ground more often than usual. Franchise based T20 cricket tournaments also became huge money spinners, with sponsors jumping onto the T20 franchise cricket bandwagon
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
MP High Court orders NTA to conduct NEET UG 2025 retest for petitioners affected by power outage at Indore, Ujjain centres
The Madhya Pradesh High Court Monday directed the National Testing Agency (NTA) to conduct a retest of NEET UG 2025 for candidates affected by a power outage at examination centres in Indore and Ujjain, as per Live Law. Justice Subodh Abhyankar, hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by the aggrieved candidates, ruled in favour of the students, stating that they were placed at a disadvantage due to circumstances beyond their control. The Court observed that the unequal conditions violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality. 'This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners, without any fault on their part, were subjected to disadvantageous conditions due to the power outage, which was not the case for others — even at the same centre where some students were seated in spots with sufficient natural light,' the order stated. To better understand the petitioners' plight, the judge even conducted part of the hearing in darkness by turning off the courtroom lights. He noted that while the courtroom had large windows allowing some natural light, such conditions might not have existed at the exam centres. The Court also clarified that only students who filed petitions before June 3, 2025 (the date the provisional answer key was published) are eligible for the relief. The counselling process will be subject to the outcome of the re-test, the HC said adding that the petitioners' ranks will be determined solely based on their performance in the re-test. NEET UG 2025 was held on May 4 and the results were declared on June 14. As many as 12,36,531 candidates cleared the exam this year. More than half of those who appeared for the exam were female candidates, while 58% or 7.22 lakh candidates who qualified were female. Among the States, the highest number of candidates who qualified were from Uttar Pradesh (1,70,684), followed by Maharashtra (1,25,727), Rajasthan (1,19,865), Karnataka (83,582) and Bihar (80,954).
