Antrix-Devas Deal: A Timeline of India’s Satellite Scandal, Contract Cancellation and Global Legal Battle (2003–2026)

US court confirms Deutsche Telekom’s $101 million award against India Track 2 · Treaty

In Deutsche Telekom AG v. Republic of India, Judge Richard Leon denied India’s motion and confirmed the award that a Permanent Court of Arbitration tribunal in Geneva made in May 2020 under the India-Germany investment treaty. He wrote that courts in Switzerland, Germany and Singapore had “considered, and rejected, many of the same issues India advances here”, and that he joined them. The Indian Express reported the order in October.

India argued that Deutsche Telekom’s stake, held through a Singapore subsidiary, was not a protected investment, and that the Devas deal was unlawful because Indian courts had found it tainted by fraud. The court held that a covered equity interest in a company does not stop being an investment because the host state later withholds a licence, and that findings against Devas did not show that the German investor itself acted unlawfully or knew of any fraud.

This is a Track 2 ruling about a treaty award. It is separate from Devas Multimedia’s own award against Antrix. As of 30 October 2026 no appeal had been reported in the sources checked.

Ninth Circuit keeps most of the US judgment on Devas’ ICC award Track 1 · Commercial

On remand from the US Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit held that the arbitration exception to sovereign immunity gives US courts jurisdiction over Antrix, that the exercise of jurisdiction was consistent with the Fifth Amendment, and that forum non conveniens does not apply to a petition to confirm a foreign award under the New York Convention. It affirmed registration of the judgment in favour of Devas Multimedia America Inc. (Bar & Bench; opinion).

It reversed the part of the ruling that let three Mauritius shareholders of Devas register the judgment, finding they lacked standing. It also left open whether the award can be enforced after Indian courts set it aside; the district court must decide that. Devas’ lawyers say the award is now worth more than $2 billion with interest; Antrix may seek rehearing.

This is a Track 1 ruling about the ICC commercial award.

CBI files supplementary chargesheet against two more former officials Track 3 · India cases

The CBI filed a supplementary chargesheet against S.K. Das and R.G. Nadathur after the special court, on 2 September 2025, directed it to probe their roles. The direction followed an application by former Department of Space additional secretary Veena Sriram Rao, who said they were party to the ISRO decisions that led to the 2005 agreement but had not been investigated (The Indian Express).

It is a chargesheet, which is an allegation. It is not a finding that either person committed an offence.

Delhi CBI court says it cannot try the case and returns the chargesheet Track 3 · India cases

The court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction and ordered the chargesheet returned to the CBI to be presented before a competent court in Bengaluru. Citing the Supreme Court’s Braj Bhushan Prasad (2001) ruling, it said that under the Prevention of Corruption Act the place where the main offence was committed decides the venue. It noted that Forge Advisors’ joint-venture proposal was submitted in Bengaluru, the Shankara Committee that vetted the deal was constituted and met there, and the 28 January 2005 agreement was signed there (The Indian Express).

The CBI had argued that the key Cabinet and Department of Space decisions, involving the Prime Minister’s Office, were taken in Delhi. This was a ruling on venue. It did not acquit anyone and did not decide whether the allegations are true. Charges had not been framed when the application was filed.

Delhi court orders CBI to examine two more officials Track 3 · India cases

Rao, one of the accused, argued that other senior ISRO officials from the early 2000s were also party to the decisions behind the 2005 agreement but had not been investigated. The court directed the CBI to look into the roles of S.K. Das and R.G. Nadathur. The CBI filed its supplementary chargesheet against them on 7 March 2026. On 7 November 2025 Rao separately challenged the court’s territorial jurisdiction.

D.C. Circuit leaves Deutsche Telekom’s case alive, sends defences back Track 2 · Treaty

The appeals court agreed that the district court was right to deny India’s motion to dismiss, but sent the case back so India’s substantive defences under the New York Convention could be considered. That produced the 30 September 2026 ruling (The Indian Express).

Earlier steps: Deutsche Telekom asked the US court to confirm the award on 19 April 2021; India won a stay in July 2022 by saying new evidence showed fraud in the formation of the agreement; the court lifted the stay in March 2023 after the Swiss Federal Supreme Court rejected India’s challenge; and it denied India’s motion to dismiss in March 2024.

US Supreme Court: no extra “minimum contacts” test for foreign states Track 1 · Commercial

The Court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act has no separate statutory minimum-contacts requirement: if an exception to immunity applies and service is proper, personal jurisdiction exists. It reversed the Ninth Circuit’s earlier ruling for Antrix and sent the case back (opinion).

It did not decide whether the Constitution’s Due Process Clause requires minimum contacts, and it did not decide the merits of the 2005 agreement or whether the award can be enforced.

US Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, then hears argument Track 1 · Commercial

The Court took up the question whether a plaintiff must show minimum contacts before a US court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign state sued under the FSIA. The Ninth Circuit had said legislative history showed Congress intended such a requirement. Antrix argued that US courts lacked jurisdiction; Devas and its investors sought recognition of the award.

Devas’ US founder-president declared a fugitive economic offender Track 3 · India cases

A special court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act declared Devas Multimedia’s US-based president, Ramachandran Vishwanathan, a fugitive economic offender in the ED’s case (Business Standard). The ED’s case is one of the Indian criminal tracks and is separate from the CBI case.

A fugitive-economic-offender order is a declaration about someone who is outside India and is not a conviction for the underlying allegations.

Delhi High Court division bench and Supreme Court leave the set-aside intact Track 1 · Commercial

On 17 March 2023 a division bench dismissed Devas’ appeal against the August 2022 judgment, holding that nothing stopped the single judge from relying on the Supreme Court’s January 2022 findings, and that a court can on its own motion find grounds of public policy or fraud to set aside an award (SCC Online). On 6 October 2023 the Supreme Court dismissed Devas’ appeal, saying the order did not call for interference (Reed Smith; Bar & Bench). That was a dismissal, not a reasoned judgment on the fraud question.

Track 2, same year: the Swiss Federal Supreme Court rejected India’s appeals against the Deutsche Telekom award, and the top court of the Netherlands rejected India’s challenge to the Mauritius investors’ award ({L(DUTCH, ‘report’)}); a separate challenge to the quantum award was reported pending.

Delhi High Court sets aside the $562.5 million ICC award Track 1 · Commercial

The High Court held that the award suffered from fraud and patent illegality and conflicted with the public policy of India, relying on the Supreme Court’s January 2022 judgment (Business Standard). The ICC tribunal had awarded Devas $562.5 million plus interest in September 2015.

This does not end the overseas cases. Devas and its investors ask foreign courts to enforce the award despite the Indian set-aside.

Supreme Court upholds liquidation of Devas Multimedia Track 3 · India cases

The Court dismissed appeals by Devas, through its ex-director, and by shareholder Devas Employees Mauritius against the winding-up order (judgment). It rejected the argument that Antrix’s winding-up petition was meant to deprive Devas of the benefit of the arbitration awards (Business Standard).

This is a corporate-law finding about how Devas was set up. It is not a criminal conviction of any person.

NCLT orders Devas wound up; NCLAT upholds it Track 3 · India cases

Antrix applied to the NCLT in January 2021, saying Devas had been incorporated with a fraudulent motive. The Tribunal ordered liquidation on 25 May 2021 (Business Standard), and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal confirmed it on appeal, which sent Devas to the Supreme Court.

US federal court in Washington confirms the ICC award Track 1 · Commercial

Judge Zilly granted the petition to confirm the ICC award of $562.5 million plus interest, with post-award interest set at 18% a year. The petition had been filed in September 2018. Reports put the total at about $1.2 billion with interest (Advanced Television); the exact figure depends on interest and later orders, so treat it as an estimate.

Hague tribunal awards the Mauritius investors about $111 million Track 2 · Treaty

After finding India liable in July 2016, the tribunal fixed compensation at about $111 million plus interest for CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. and Telcom Devas Mauritius Ltd. (award). The investors have since sought to enforce it in several countries, including the United States.

Geneva tribunal awards Deutsche Telekom about $101 million Track 2 · Treaty

Deutsche Telekom had invested about $99.2 million in Devas in 2008-09 through a Singapore subsidiary, for a 20.73% stake. The tribunal found that India breached the treaty and awarded about $101 million (The Indian Express). With interest, Deutsche Telekom asked the US court to confirm about $135 million.

ED files money-laundering chargesheet Track 3 · India cases

The ED chargesheeted former Antrix managing director K.R. Sridhara Murthi and Devas officials, alleging that part of the Rs 579 crore of foreign investment Devas received was moved out of India (Advanced Television). The Indian Express reports the ED’s figure as 85% of the funds sent to the US. Reports differ on how many people were named, from six to nine.

These are allegations in a pending case. No court has convicted anyone on them.

CBI chargesheets former ISRO chairman G. Madhavan Nair and seven others Track 3 · India cases

The CBI named Nair, Devas Multimedia and others for criminal conspiracy, cheating and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging a wrongful gain of about Rs 578 crore (Business Standard/PTI). The government gave sanction to prosecute in 2017 (Onmanorama). The Indian Express has described the chargesheet both as filed in 2016 and as “2018”; the contemporaneous reports point to August 2016.

A chargesheet is an allegation, not a conviction. Nair and the others have denied wrongdoing, and the case has not reached a verdict.

Hague tribunal finds India breached the Mauritius investment treaty Track 2 · Treaty

The tribunal held that India violated its obligations under the India-Mauritius investment protection agreement in cancelling the deal, and left the amount of compensation for a later stage. According to the Business Standard, the tribunals pointed to delays and indecision in reallocating the spectrum as showing there was no immediate need or emergency. The finding was made in a treaty case against the Republic of India, not in the contract dispute between Devas and Antrix.

ICC tribunal awards Devas $562.5 million Track 1 · Commercial

The tribunal held that Antrix had no legal justification for terminating the agreement and awarded about $562.5 million in damages, with interest. Including pre-award interest the sum reported at the time was about $672 million (The Quint). Devas had sought $1.6 billion, according to the government’s reply to Parliament (PIB).

Government tells Parliament what the agreement was The deal

The Department of Space said Antrix had agreed on 28 January 2005 to lease 90% of the S-band transponder capacity on two satellites, to be funded, built and launched by ISRO. It stated that Antrix had no joint venture with Devas and that ISRO had not allocated any S-band spectrum to Devas. It listed the pending claims: the Mauritius investors’ notice of 3 July 2012, a statement of claim of 1 July 2013, and Deutsche Telekom’s own notice of arbitration of 2 September 2013 (PIB release).

Mauritius shareholders give notice of treaty arbitration Track 2 · Treaty

Three Mauritius-based shareholders of Devas notified India that they were invoking the India-Mauritius investment protection agreement and UNCITRAL rules (PIB). This opened Track 2.

Government bars Madhavan Nair and three others from official posts Track 3 · India cases

Following the Pratyush Sinha team’s findings, the government barred former ISRO chairman G. Madhavan Nair and three other former space officials from holding government posts (Governance Now). Nair challenged it before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Deccan Herald), which dismissed his plea in March 2013.

This was an administrative sanction. It is not a criminal finding, and the officials disputed it.

Pratyush Sinha team reports “serious administrative and procedural lapses” Track 3 · India cases

The team reported lapses and “suggestion of collusive behaviour on the part of certain individuals”. An earlier two-member committee of B.K. Chaturvedi and Roddam Narasimha, which reported to the Prime Minister in March 2011, had concluded, according to press reports, that concerns about spectrum being sold cheaply to Devas had no basis. The two reviews pointed in different directions, and the Sinha findings were the ones the government acted on.

Antrix terminates the agreement The deal

The Cabinet Committee on Security, chaired by the Prime Minister, decided on 17 February 2011 that Antrix should annul the contract (Assam Tribune). Antrix terminated it on 25 February. The government’s stated reason was a decision not to make S-band spectrum available for commercial use but to keep it for strategic needs (PIB).

The decision became public amid the 2G spectrum controversy, and was widely reported as an annulment of a “sweetheart deal”. The Business Standard timeline notes that the Department of Space had recommended annulment on 30 June 2010 and the Space Commission accepted it on 2 July 2010, but this was not communicated to Devas.

Space Commission accepts recommendation to annul The deal

The Department of Space recommended annulment on 30 June 2010 and the Space Commission accepted it on 2 July (Business Standard). This came after complaints about implementation in November 2009 and a review by a committee chaired by B.N. Suresh, set up on 8 December 2009.

Deutsche Telekom invests about $99.2 million Track 2 · Treaty

The German company bought into Devas, joining Mauritius-based investors. Their stakes later became the basis of the two treaty claims (The Indian Express).

Antrix and Devas sign the agreement The deal

Antrix agreed to lease Devas 90% of the S-band transponder capacity on two ISRO satellites, GSAT-6 and GSAT-6A, to be funded, built and launched by ISRO, for 12 years. The price was Rs 167 crore, according to The Indian Express; the two satellites were built at a cost of Rs 766 crore. Devas planned multimedia services to mobile devices in India.

The government later stated that Antrix had entered no joint venture with Devas and that ISRO had not allocated spectrum to it (PIB).

From Forge Advisors’ proposal to the founding of Devas The deal

A joint-venture proposal by the US firm Forge Advisors was submitted to Antrix in Bengaluru, and Devas Multimedia was founded in Bengaluru in 2004 by former ISRO officials and US-based space entrepreneurs. The CBI case concerns decisions in this period, and the Delhi court noted in 2026 that the Forge proposal and the Devas deal were handled in Bengaluru.