Devas Vs. ISRO's Antrix: The Satellite Deal That Sparked a Billion-Dollar Legal War

The US Supreme Court has recently ruled that the $1.29 billion lawsuit against ISRO-owned Antrix Corporation can proceed in American courts, marking a significant escalation in the long-running legal dispute between India and Devas Multimedia. The case revolves around a 2005 satellite deal between Antrix and Devas, which was abruptly canceled in 2011 by the Indian government over national security concerns.

The Deal and Its Collapse

In 2005, under the leadership of ISRO Chairman G. Madhavan Nair and Antrix Corporation Managing Director K.R. Sridhar Murthy, Antrix signed a contract with Devas Multimedia to provide satellite-based broadband services by leasing S-band transponder capacity on the GSAT-6 and GSAT-6A satellites. At the time, the Minister of Space was the-then Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, while Dayanidhi Maran held the Communications & IT portfolio.

However, by 2011, the deal was scrapped amid concerns about spectrum undervaluation and potential security risks. ISRO Chairman K. Radhakrishnan and Communications & IT Minister Kapil Sibal were in office when the cancellation decision was made. The termination coincided with India's 2G telecom spectrum controversy, raising questions about transparency and policy inconsistencies.

Devas Multimedia was founded in 2004 and was led by Dr. M.G. Chandrasekhar, a former Scientific Secretary at ISRO. Another key founder associated with the company is Ramachandran Viswanathan. The company was based in Bangalore, India, and aimed to provide satellite broadband services across the country.

Devas also attracted investment from Deutsche Telekom, which acquired a 17% stake for about $75 million. 

Legal Battle in US Courts

Following the Antrix-Devas deal cancellation, Devas Multimedia initiated arbitration, claiming that India's decision was unjustified and amounted to contractual breach. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) later ordered Devas’ liquidation in 2021, a ruling upheld by the Indian Supreme Court. Yet, Devas pursued enforcement of the arbitral award across multiple jurisdictions.

In 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuit, asserting that Antrix lacked sufficient ties to the US under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). However, in a unanimous 2025 Supreme Court ruling, US justices determined that jurisdiction exists under FSIA when an immunity exception applies and service is proper—allowing the case to proceed.

Implications for India’s Arbitration Strategy

The ruling could shape how India navigates international arbitration, influencing future disputes involving state-owned enterprises and sovereign immunity claims. With global companies increasingly challenging Indian regulatory decisions in foreign courts, the case underscores India's need for a more cohesive legal strategy to protect its interests on the international stage.

As India moves forward, the lawsuit raises critical questions about how sovereign decisions intersect with global business agreements —and whether government-backed enterprises can shield themselves from costly legal battles abroad.

Davos 2020: Need to Ease Norms for Fintech Sector in India, Says NDA Partner Pratibha Jain

Ms. Pratibha Jain, Partner and Head of the New Delhi office of Nishith Desai Associates (NDA), recently spoke at the 2020 World Economic Forum (WEF) and called for regulations to be eased for the country’s fintech sector to promote financial inclusion.

Ms. Jain speaking in Davos, emphasized that regulations were critical in ensuring fintech solutions were not used for money laundering or terror financing, but banning new technologies will prove to be counterproductive.

"As technologies are still evolving, prescriptive laws will keep becoming obsolete as technologies change, and banning technologies like cryptocurrencies will only push the market for them to develop outside India," she said.

Furthermore, Ms. Jain observed that "Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing regulations are undoubtedly very important for a country like India where the parallel cash economy and terrorism financing - both of which are a major challenge to not only national security, but also for economic growth and development."

“In that sense, they help protect the rule of law and democracy. They are also important for international security.”

A corporate lawyer admitted to legal practice in India and the USA. Ms. Jain made her comments during the session on, "Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorist Financing (AMLCTF) System in Modern FinTech Industry,” at the Caspian Week, WEF.

While India does not have a unified code of laws governing fintech. Fintech activities in India are primarily regulated by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), India's banking regulator. Regulation takes the form of acts passed by the legislature and rules and regulations passed by the RBI and other regulators.

Currently, there is a rising debate in the country over banning of crypto currencies continues in India, with the RBI circular prohibiting entities that it regulates, including banks from providing services to persons or entities dealing in or settling crypto currencies being challenged in Supreme Court of India by the Internet and Mobile Association of India.

RBI in its affidavit to the Supreme Court stated that "It is an admitted fact that VCs [virtual currencies] have been used to purchase illegal and illicit goods ranging from guns and ammunition to drugs,” hence, citing national security concerns for their move.

Giving a detailed overview of the issue and in particular the implications for regulation, Ms. Jain observed, “I would argue that such regulations need to be balanced and principle-based rather than rule-based, and we should seriously consider three issues: first, the efficacy of fintech companies to provide solutions for financial inclusion. According to a 2018 report released by the World Bank, India is home to the second-largest unbanked population in the world. Fintech can significantly help with financial inclusion by obviating the need for brick and mortar banks to serve the traditionally underserved and unserved population in India. Digital banks, digital lenders, digital insurers - all can help fill this gap. But, this requires government to promote innovation and the ease of doing business for these companies, especially when the amounts in question are not too significant.”

“Second, myriad of laws that don’t allow for effective transfer between nations or stop technological development.”

“Third, the safeguards against abuse of such laws by governments is also an area of concern. The definition of the proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is very broad that even a genuine purchase of property by a bank in an auction can run the risk of being accessed by authorities as proceeds of crime. When laws don’t have the checks and balances to ensure basic fundamental rights are protected, such laws are susceptible to be misused for political motivated prosecutions. Unfortunately, the efficacy of these laws is not yet proven.”

While technology has yet again been a central topic of discussion at this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, this year’s deliberations also saw a determined focus on fintech and how financial inclusion is key to meeting the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

Ms. Jain is an Aspen Fellow and a law graduate from the University of Delhi, University of Oxford and Harvard Law School.