The tribunal held that the BCCI's payments to host the 2009 IPL in South Africa were lawful current account transactions under FEMA.
Lalit Modi was cleared after the tribunal found he was not legally responsible for the BCCI's affairs under Section 42 of FEMA.
While two procedural violations against the BCCI were upheld, the ruling removes the ED's principal findings against Modi in this case.
More than 15 years after the Indian Premier League (IPL) was shifted to South Africa, the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) long-running foreign exchange case against former IPL chairman Lalit Modi has largely been dismantled by an appellate tribunal. In a significant ruling, the Appellate Tribunal under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act (SAFEMA) overturned the ED's principal findings, set aside the penalties imposed on Modi and several others, and held that the agency had wrongly interpreted the nature of the money transferred overseas to stage the 2009 tournament.
The ruling is also significant because Modi has since said he is looking forward to returning to India. Shortly after the ruling, he said he was looking forward to returning. While the verdict does not erase every controversy surrounding his tenure or affect the disciplinary action taken against him by the BCCI in 2010, it removes the FEMA findings that formed the basis of the ED's case against him in this matter. The tribunal's decision explains why the remittances did not require prior RBI approval, why Modi could not be held personally liable under FEMA, and why two procedural violations by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) nevertheless survived.
How did the 2009 IPL end up before the ED?
The second edition of the IPL was moved from India to South Africa after security concerns emerged because of the 2009 general elections.
To organise the tournament, the BCCI entered into a Heads of Agreement with Cricket South Africa (CSA), setting out the broad commercial terms under which CSA would host the event. A dedicated bank account named "IPL South Africa" was also opened for the tournament.
Between 2009 and 2010, the BCCI remitted about $49.86 million (around Rs 243.45 crore at the time) to CSA to conduct the tournament. CSA also collected ticket-sale revenue of about South African Rand 3.83 crore, which was repatriated to India more than a year later.
The ED argued that these remittances violated the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). According to the agency, they were not ordinary business payments but capital account transactions requiring prior approval from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).
Its argument rested on the Heads of Agreement. Since no final budget had been prepared when the agreement was signed, the ED said it created uncertain or contingent liabilities outside India. It described the agreement as a mechanism designed to circumvent FEMA rather than a genuine commercial arrangement.
The agency also invoked Section 42 of FEMA to hold Lalit Modi personally liable, arguing that as the architect of the IPL he should answer for the alleged violations. After its investigation, the ED issued 12 show-cause notices and, in 2018, imposed penalties on the BCCI, Modi, former BCCI secretary N Srinivasan, former treasurer MP Pandove, the State Bank of Travancore (now SBI), and one of its officials.
Why did the tribunal reject the ED's case?
The tribunal found that the ED's case rested on an incorrect reading of FEMA.
Under the law, current account transactions include payments made for trade, services and other business activities in the ordinary course of business. Such transactions are generally permitted under Section 5 of FEMA without prior RBI approval.
Capital account transactions, on the other hand, involve altering assets or liabilities outside India, including contingent liabilities, and are subject to tighter regulation.
The ED argued that the agreement with CSA created contingent liabilities and therefore converted the remittances into capital account transactions.
The tribunal disagreed on every significant aspect of that reasoning.
The agreement fixed a management fee of $3 million for CSA, while the remaining remittances were made to meet the actual costs of staging the tournament under what the BCCI described as a cost-plus-fee arrangement.
That distinction proved decisive. The tribunal held that the liabilities arising under the agreement were definite, even if the final amount payable was worked out later. A liability, it observed, does not become contingent merely because its precise quantification or final settlement takes place at a later stage.
Since the payments were consideration for hosting services rather than an investment or creation of foreign liabilities, they remained current account transactions that did not require prior RBI approval. Once that conclusion was reached, the foundation of the ED's principal case fell away.
Why was Lalit Modi cleared?
The tribunal also rejected the ED's attempt to hold Modi personally liable under Section 42(1) of FEMA.
The provision applies only where a person was both "in charge of" and "responsible to" the company for the conduct of its business when the alleged contravention occurred.
The ED argued that Modi, as the driving force behind the IPL, should be treated as responsible for the transactions.
Instead of relying on the ED's description of Modi as the IPL's architect, the tribunal examined the BCCI's own constitution to determine who was legally responsible for its affairs.
It found that responsibility for the BCCI's affairs rested with its office-bearers — the president, secretary, treasurer and joint secretary. Modi, by contrast, served as chairman of the IPL governing council, a sub-committee of the BCCI.
As a result, the tribunal held that there was no material to show he satisfied the twin requirements under Section 42. It found that he had been proceeded against without evidence that he was either in charge of, or responsible for, the conduct of the BCCI's business in the manner required by the statute. The penalties imposed on him were therefore set aside.
According to Modi's counsel, no other FEMA case relating to this issue remains pending against him. Modi left India shortly after being removed by the BCCI in 2010 and has lived abroad since. That explains why the ruling has assumed significance beyond the immediate dispute and why Modi has publicly said he now intends to return to India after years abroad.
The judgment, however, does not affect the BCCI's disciplinary action against him or other allegations made by the board after his removal in 2010.
Why do penalties against the BCCI still remain?
Although the tribunal dismantled the ED's principal case, it found that two procedural violations by the BCCI warranted penalties.
The first concerned payments made to CSA. The tribunal noted that the BCCI's books reflected only about Rs 4 crore as payable to CSA, yet the board remitted the full settlement amount, resulting in what it described as an excess remittance of around Rs 44.16 crore. Since the BCCI offered no satisfactory explanation for the discrepancy or the basis on which the higher amount was remitted, the tribunal allowed the Rs 4 crore penalty on that count to stand.
The second related to ticket-sale revenue earned in South Africa. The tribunal rejected the BCCI's explanation that the delay in bringing the money back to India resulted from the mingling of accounts and ongoing settlements with CSA. It held that neither reason justified waiting around 15 months to repatriate the funds.
However, because the money was eventually brought back to India, the tribunal found the original Rs 4 crore penalty excessive and reduced it to Rs 1 crore.
What does the ruling mean?
The judgment does not declare that every aspect of the IPL's move to South Africa complied with FEMA. Instead, it draws a clear distinction between the ED's principal allegation and the BCCI's procedural lapses.
For the tribunal, the central allegation—that the overseas remittances amounted to unauthorised capital account transactions—failed because the payments were simply consideration for hosting services under a commercial agreement. Once that conclusion was reached, the basis for holding Lalit Modi liable under FEMA also disappeared.
The two surviving findings against the BCCI relate to procedural FEMA violations, not to the legality of transferring money abroad to conduct the tournament itself.
The ruling therefore narrows one of the longest-running legal disputes arising from the 2009 IPL. While it leaves untouched the BCCI's disciplinary action against Modi and does not deal with any unrelated matters, it removes the principal FEMA findings against him in this case and, according to his counsel, leaves no related FEMA proceedings pending. That is why Modi has said he now intends to return to India after years abroad.
