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.