SC junks Lalit Modi's plea seeking BCCI to pay ED penalty
The Supreme Court on Monday junked a plea filed by former cricket administrator Lalit Modi seeking an order to the BCCI to pay a penalty of ₹10.65 crore imposed on him by the ED for violating the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA).
A Bench of Justices P. S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan, however, said Mr. Modi will be entitled to avail civil remedies as available according to law.
The Bombay High Court on December 19 last year had imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on Mr. Modi while dismissing his petition seeking an order to the BCCI to pay a penalty of ₹10.65 crore imposed on him by the Enforcement Directorate for violating FEMA.
The high court had said the petition was "frivolous and wholly misconceived" as the adjudication authority under FEMA has imposed the penalty on Mr. Modi.
Mr. Modi, in his plea, said he was appointed as vice president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, during which period he was also the chairman of the Indian Premier League governing body, a subcommittee of the BCCI.
The plea claimed that the BCCI is supposed to indemnify him as per the bylaws.
The HC Bench, however, referred to a Supreme Court judgment of 2005, which said the BCCI does not fall under the definition of a 'state' as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution.
Despite clear orders from the apex court, Mr. Modi filed this petition in 2018, the HC Bench noted.
"In matters of alleged indemnification of the petitioner [Modi] in the context of penalties imposed upon the petitioner 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 HC had said.
"In any event, the reliefs are wholly misconceived. This petition is frivolous, and accordingly, we dismiss this petition," the court had said and directed Mr. Modi to pay a sum of ₹1 lakh to the Tata Memorial Hospital within four weeks.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
44 minutes ago
- First Post
Showdown in court: Trump's bid to use 18th-century law for mass deportations faces crucial test
A federal appeals court will hear arguments today on whether President Trump can use the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify mass deportations, a case likely headed to the Supreme Court read more A federal appeals court is set to hear arguments today on whether President Donald Trump can invoke the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify mass deportations, a case likely headed to the Supreme Court. One of President Trump's most controversial claims of executive power came in March, when he issued a proclamation invoking an 18th-century law to justify rounding up and deporting dozens of immigrants he alleged were members of a Venezuelan street gang. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD According to a report by The New York Times, the Alien Enemies Act has been used only three times in US history, and only during wartime. Trump's use of the law has sparked serious questions about whether his actions align with the statute's actual text, added the report. For over three months, courts nationwide have struggled to answer whether President Trump overstepped legal boundaries in pursuing one of his key policy goals: mass deportation of immigrants. On Monday, the legal fight reaches a critical stage as the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans hears arguments over Trump's use of t he Alien Enemies Act. The case is expected to revisit legal points already raised in lower courts by both the Trump administration and attorneys representing the Venezuelan men targeted under the policy. However, this hearing could prove decisive, likely becoming the first case on the issue to reach the Supreme Court for a full review of whether Trump's use of the centuries-old law was lawful. About Alien Enemies Act Enacted in 1798 when United States faced potential war with France, the Alien Enemies Act grants the president broad authority to detain and expel nationals from hostile foreign powers, but only during a declared war, invasion, or what the law calls a 'predatory incursion.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD From the outset, the Trump administration has taken an unorthodox approach to the statute, using it to target dozens of Venezuelan men accused of ties to the Tren de Aragua street gang, which President Trump has labeled a foreign terrorist organisation. Trump and his advisers have argued that the men are not simply gang members, but operatives acting in coordination with the Venezuelan government. Their presence in the US, they claim, amounts to an invasion by a hostile state. According to the NYT report_,_ the American Civil Liberties Union, representing the Venezuelan men, has dismissed the administration's claims as baseless. ACLU lawyers argue that mass migration is not an invasion and say there's no clear evidence linking their clients, many with no criminal records, to the Venezuelan government. Most federal courts so far have agreed, ruling that Trump misused the Alien Enemies Act and that the migrants do not pose a military threat. However, two courts have backed the administration, citing the president's broad authority over foreign affairs, especially involving a group labeled a terrorist organisation, added the report. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The ACLU faces tough odds in the Fifth Circuit, one of the most conservative appeals courts in the country. Regardless of Monday's outcome, the case is widely expected to head to the Supreme Court. Unusual path to Fifth Circuit The case reached the Fifth Circuit through an unusual route. In April, the ACLU filed an emergency lawsuit after learning the Trump administration planned to deport Venezuelans held at the Bluebonnet Detention Facility in Texas under the Alien Enemies Act. The ACLU argued it was a tactic to sidestep court orders in other states blocking similar deportations. When a district judge didn't act quickly, the ACLU appealed to the Fifth Circuit and then the Supreme Court, warning the men faced imminent removal to El Salvador. The Supreme Court temporarily halted the deportations, citing due process violations but avoiding the broader legal question. Last month, it upheld the freeze and sent the case back to the Fifth Circuit, instructing it to rule on two key issues: whether Trump's use of the Act was lawful and what notice immigrants must receive before removal. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD With inputs from agencies
United News of India
an hour ago
- United News of India
PM condoles Sangareddy factory fire victims, announces ex-gratia
New Delhi, June 30 (UNI) Prime Minister Narendra Modi today expressed grief over the loss of lives in a massive fire incident at a factory in Sangareddy district of Telangana. In a post shared by the Prime Minister's Office on social media platform X, Modi said he was "anguished by the loss of lives due to a fire tragedy" and offered condolences to the bereaved families. "May the injured recover soon," he added. An ex-gratia of Rs 2 lakh each from the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund (PMNRF) will be provided to the next of kin of those who died in the incident. Those injured will receive Rs 50,000, said the statement from the Government. Six people were killed and 20 others injured, some of them critically, following an explosion in a chemical reactor at a factory in the Pashamylaram industrial area of Sangareddy district in Telangana this to police, the explosion occurred at Sigachi Industries, triggering a massive fire that engulfed parts of the facility. UNI AJ RN
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
‘Bagina politics': Farmers allege KRS honoured but Kabini ignored
The tradition of offering 'Bagina' to Kabini and the Krishnaraja Sagar on the same day was ignored this year which has irked a section of farmers who have criticised the government. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah offered Bagina, the traditional thanksgiving to the river, consequent to the reservoir attaining the full level at the KRS on Monday. All these years, the practice was to visit the Kabini first, make the offerings, and then visit the KRS to complete the rituals on the same day. Irked by the Chief Minister offering Bagina only at the KRS, the Karnataka State Sugarcane Growers' Association president H. Bhagyaraj and others staged a demonstration in Mysuru to voice their protest. Angered by the CM's move, Mr. Bhagyaraj said Bagina has been offered hastily at the KRS for political spectacle. But when the water is released to Tamil Nadu during distress years and when Karnataka has to comply with the Supreme Court's directives, it is the farmers from the Kabini command area whose interests are sacrificed by the government, Mr. Bhagyaraj added. The farmers also alleged that several illegal resorts have been built along the Kabini backwaters, though none of the development works previously announced by the government have materialised so far. The farmers also criticised the government for its alleged move to privatise the power sector and said that the installation of smart meters was a step in that direction. In due course, the installation will be extended to the agriculture sector as well, pushing farmers out of agriculture and facilitating the entry of the corporates to the agricultural sector, said Mr. Bhagyaraj. Opposing the compulsory installation of smart meters, the farmers urged the government to withdraw the notification failing which the association threatened to launch an agitation. They urged the government to fix the Fair and Remunerative Price for sugarcane at ₹4,000 a tonne for the current season. Other demands included putting an end to 'forced land acquisition' for development, ensuring reparation works of canals and channels in the rural hinterland, and filling up the waterbodies.
