Devas-ISRO Antrix: Billion-Dollar Satellite Dispute
- Supreme Court has cleared the way for a $1.29 billion lawsuit against Antrix Corporation, owned by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), to be heard in American courts.
- The dispute centers on a 2005 agreement where antrix was to provide satellite-based broadband services to Devas Multimedia.
- Devas Multimedia later initiated arbitration proceedings, alleging the cancellation constituted a breach of contract.
Supreme Court greenlights $1.29B Antrix Lawsuit, Impacting India’s Arbitration Strategy
The U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for a $1.29 billion lawsuit against Antrix Corporation, owned by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), to be heard in American courts. This decision marks a notable progress in the ongoing legal battle between India and Devas Multimedia over a controversial satellite deal.
The dispute centers on a 2005 agreement where antrix was to provide satellite-based broadband services to Devas Multimedia. G. Madhavan Nair,then ISRO chairman,and K.R. Sridhar Murthy, Antrix managing director, oversaw the deal’s inception. The Indian government, however, annulled the agreement in 2011, citing national security concerns. At the time of cancellation, K. Radhakrishnan was ISRO chairman, and Kapil Sibal served as Communications & IT Minister.
Devas Multimedia later initiated arbitration proceedings, alleging the cancellation constituted a breach of contract. While India’s National company law Tribunal (NCLT) ordered Devas’ liquidation in 2021, a ruling upheld by the Indian Supreme Court, Devas continued to pursue enforcement of the arbitral award internationally. The Supreme Court ruling specifically addresses sovereign immunity claims and the international arbitration process.
In 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals initially dismissed the case, arguing Antrix lacked sufficient U.S. ties under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Supreme Court, though, unanimously reversed this decision in 2025, stating that jurisdiction exists under FSIA when an immunity exception applies and service is proper.
What’s next
This ruling may substantially influence india’s approach to international arbitration, particularly in cases involving state-owned enterprises. As global companies increasingly challenge Indian regulatory decisions in foreign courts, India may need to refine its legal strategies to safeguard its interests on the global stage.