As Devas-Antrix case plays out in courts, India mounts defence

A Decade-Long Dispute Over Satellite Spectrum

The Devas-Antrix controversy traces back to a 2005-era satellite spectrum agreement between Devas Multimedia and Antrix Corporation, the commercial arm of India's space agency. In 2011, the Indian government terminated the project, citing the need to preserve satellite capacity for national purposes. This termination triggered a cascade of legal battles that has since evolved into a complex international dispute spanning multiple jurisdictions and legal frameworks. The core disagreement centers on whether India had the right to cancel the contract and whether Devas deserves compensation for the terminated agreement.

When Antrix invoked a force majeure clause to justify the contract termination, Devas disagreed and initiated arbitration proceedings under the India-Mauritius investment treaty. The International Chamber of Commerce tribunal ultimately sided with Devas, awarding the company 562.5 million dollars in damages plus interest—a decision that would prove to be just the beginning of an extraordinarily protracted legal saga. The arbitral award effectively established that Antrix had unlawfully terminated the agreement, a finding that has since become the crux of ongoing enforcement battles worldwide.

India's Multi-Front Legal Strategy

India is currently engaged in hectic legal and diplomatic efforts spanning Canada, the United Kingdom, and France to defend against enforcement actions initiated by Devas shareholders. The situation intensified following a March 2026 ruling from The Hague, which upheld enforcement of a 111 million dollar ICC award, providing fresh momentum to Devas's collection efforts. Simultaneously, a Canadian court has allowed Devas to seek enforcement of 37.5 million dollars belonging to India's Airports Authority, which is currently parked with the International Air Transport Association. The court's decision to classify the Airports Authority as the "alter ego" of India has prompted the Indian government to file emergency applications seeking stays on asset seizures.

The UK Court of Appeal is currently hearing critical proceedings that will determine whether India can invoke sovereign immunity protections or whether it waived such immunity by agreeing to arbitration. This case carries enormous implications beyond the immediate dispute, as its outcome could establish precedents affecting how international arbitration functions in investment treaties worldwide.

The outcome of the UK appeal is expected to have significant implications for all other litigation involving Indian assets globally, as it will determine whether India can be subjected to enforcement of arbitral awards issued under the India-Mauritius investment treaty.

Domestic Proceedings and Jurisdictional Challenges

Within India, the Central Bureau of Investigation's corruption chargesheet in the Antrix-Devas case has encountered significant procedural obstacles. A Delhi court recently returned the chargesheet after nearly ten years, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. The court determined that the case should be tried in Bengaluru, noting that the key events linked to the alleged offenses and the institutions central to the matter are based in Karnataka. This jurisdictional ruling has delayed proceedings further and required the investigating agency to refile the case in the appropriate venue.

The Indian government has pursued aggressive domestic strategies against Devas, including liquidation proceedings at the National Company Law Tribunal based on fraud allegations. The Indian courts ruled that Devas must be liquidated based on claims that the company was incorporated with fraudulent intent to secure an advantageous contract with Antrix. However, international courts have begun scrutinizing these proceedings, raising concerns about due process protections. The High Court of Australia found that Indian courts denied Devas crucial rights, including document production and cross-examination opportunities, thereby violating fair hearing principles.

Despite India's defense of these liquidation proceedings on fraud grounds, international judicial bodies have questioned their fairness and proportionality. Critics argue that the Indian government has shifted the burden of proof, requiring Devas to prove the non-existence of fraud rather than maintaining the traditional standard of requiring the accuser to prove fraudulent conduct. This disparity in procedural protections has undermined India's position in overseas enforcement proceedings, with foreign courts becoming increasingly skeptical of the underlying fraud allegations.

Global Implications and Ongoing Developments

The Devas-Antrix dispute represents a watershed moment in international investment arbitration, particularly regarding space industry contracts and government actions affecting private companies. The case has highlighted tensions between state sovereignty and investor protections under bilateral investment treaties. As proceedings continue across multiple jurisdictions, the outcomes will likely shape how nations negotiate and enforce investment agreements in the future. The convergence of corporate law, international arbitration, and investment treaty principles in this single case underscores the complexity of modern international commerce.

The next critical hearing in the Canadian proceedings is expected in early April, where India will present its emergency application seeking to stay the execution of orders targeting Airports Authority funds. Meanwhile, developments in the UK Court of Appeal will provide important guidance on whether India can successfully defend itself based on sovereign immunity principles despite having agreed to arbitration. These concurrent proceedings underscore how a single commercial dispute can fragment across multiple legal systems, each applying different principles and standards. The Indian government continues to recalibrate its defense strategy based on adverse rulings while exploring all available legal avenues to protect its interests.