Washington D.C./New Delhi, June 20, 2025 — In a significant setback for India’s space agency and its commercial subsidiary, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the enforcement suit seeking to confirm a massive USD 1.29 billion arbitral award against Antrix Corporation Limited can proceed in US courts. The apex court’s decision reopens a high-stakes legal battle stemming from one of India’s most controversial satellite deals, which has embroiled the Indian government in litigation across multiple jurisdictions for over a decade.
The ruling, delivered this week, overturns a 2023 judgment by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which had sided with Antrix. The lower court had dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that Antrix, owned by India’s premier space research agency ISRO, lacked sufficient commercial presence or “minimum contacts” with the United States to establish personal jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).
However, the Supreme Court held that the FSIA’s explicit language governs questions of personal jurisdiction over foreign sovereign entities — once an immunity exception applies and the defendant has been properly served, no additional “minimum contacts” need be demonstrated.
“Personal jurisdiction exists under the FSIA when an immunity exception applies and service is proper. The FSIA does not require proof of ‘minimum contacts’ over and above the contacts already required by the Act’s enumerated exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity,” the court ruled.
“Because the Ninth Circuit required more, we reverse the judgment below and remand the suit for further proceedings.”
The plaintiffs — Mauritius-based CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. and India-based Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. — have pursued confirmation of the arbitral award in the US for nearly a decade, after multiple global tribunals and foreign courts ruled in their favour.
Origins of the Dispute
The roots of the dispute trace back to 2005, when Antrix signed an agreement with Bengaluru-based Devas Multimedia to lease S-band transponders on two ISRO satellites. Devas intended to deploy these satellite assets to roll out advanced multimedia services for mobile devices across India.
However, in 2011, amid changing security and spectrum policy considerations, the Indian government abruptly annulled the contract citing “national security” concerns, triggering a spate of legal proceedings by Devas and its foreign investors in international forums.
In 2015, an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitral tribunal awarded Devas USD 562.5 million plus interest for wrongful repudiation of the contract. Over time, with accrued interest, the total sought by Devas’ foreign stakeholders has ballooned to approximately USD 1.29 billion.
Indian Courts Find Fraud, Order Liquidation
Meanwhile, in India, the government and Antrix have consistently argued that the Devas deal was marred by fraud from inception. Indian authorities initiated multiple proceedings alleging misrepresentation and impropriety in securing the transponder lease.
In 2021, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) ordered the liquidation of Devas Multimedia, branding it a “sham entity” created to siphon public resources. The Supreme Court of India upheld this finding in January 2022, and the Delhi High Court subsequently annulled the ICC arbitral award on grounds of fraud, illegality, and conflict with India’s public policy.
Parallel Global Enforcement Efforts
Despite domestic findings of fraud, Devas’ foreign investors, including Mauritius-based entities, have continued to pursue enforcement of the arbitral award in jurisdictions such as the US, France, and Canada. In some instances, they have secured orders to seize Indian diplomatic and commercial assets abroad — a move strongly resisted by the Indian government as violative of sovereign immunity and diplomatic protections.
In August 2023, the Ninth Circuit had provided temporary relief to Antrix by agreeing that the plaintiffs could not establish jurisdiction without proving that Antrix had deliberate business connections with the United States. Devas’ investors appealed this decision to the US Supreme Court in May 2024.
Earlier this year, Antrix filed its own brief urging the US Supreme Court to uphold the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation, arguing that extending jurisdiction without minimum contacts would undermine the safeguards built into the FSIA.
Supreme Court’s Ruling and What It Means
Rejecting Antrix’s position, the Supreme Court clarified that the FSIA, enacted in 1976, provides the exclusive framework for determining when a foreign sovereign entity can be sued in US courts. Under the statute, if an exception to immunity applies — such as an arbitration exception — and the defendant has been properly served, then personal jurisdiction automatically exists.
“The Ninth Circuit’s two contrary arguments cannot override the plain meaning of the FSIA’s personal-jurisdiction provision,” the judgment stated emphatically.
The ruling means that the US federal district court must now proceed with Devas’ suit to confirm and enforce the USD 1.29 billion arbitral award against Antrix’s assets, if any are found within the United States or reachable through US jurisdiction.
Next Steps and Broader Implications
The decision adds yet another layer of complexity to India’s protracted dispute with Devas’ foreign investors, who argue that India reneged on its contractual obligations and is now seeking to evade international law by labelling the agreement fraudulent post-facto.
Indian legal experts warn that while the Supreme Court’s ruling does not comment on the merits of the fraud allegations or the underlying award, it reaffirms that foreign sovereigns must abide by global arbitration norms or face enforcement actions abroad.
This is not the first time India has faced international litigation on its sovereign commitments. The outcome of the Devas saga will likely influence foreign investor sentiment and shape India’s approach to bilateral investment treaties and cross-border commercial arbitration going forward.
For now, Antrix and the Indian government face the immediate task of defending against fresh attempts to seize or attach assets in the United States, even as parallel proceedings continue in other countries.