- On June 5, 2025, the US Supreme Court’s decision reversed the 2023 Ninth Circuit Court of appeals, which had rejected the suit based on jurisdiction, arguing that Antrix had a lack of adequate ‘minimum contacts’ with the US to sue under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).
- In February 2011, Antrix abolished the agreement, giving priority to the S-Band spectrum for strategic purposes, citing national security concerns and a revised Indian policy.
- This protracted conflict has the potential to affect India-US relations at a particularly sensitive moment when the two countries are fostering an ever-deepening relationship, amongst other things, through the Quad.
- The case crosses the only commercial dispute, touching sensitive geopolitical issues, while the financial and prestigious blow to Antrix can affect India’s credibility in international space cooperation.
Introduction
On June 5, 2025, the US Supreme Court delivered a landmark verdict, with a $ 1.29 billion mediation award enforcement suit filed against Antrix Corporation by CC/Devas at Mauritius and Devas Multimedia at India, to proceed to the commercial branch of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). The decision marks a 2005 failed satellite deal, India’s space program, international arbitration and an important intersection of geopolitical stresses with implications for international arbitration and bilateral relations with the United States.
Background of dispute
In January 2005, Antrix entered into an agreement with a Bengaluru-based startup to lease the S-band spectrum transponders on two ISRO satellites (GSAT-6 and GSAT-6) for 12 years for Rs 167 crore. The Devas planned to use this spectrum to provide hybrid satellite-temperate communication services across India. However, in February 2011, Antrix abolished the agreement, giving priority to the S-Band spectrum for strategic purposes, citing national security concerns and a revised Indian policy. Against the backdrop of the 2G spectrum scam, it triggers a sudden cancellation, a waterfall of legal battles.
In June 2011, Devas initiated arbitration proceedings under the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). Despite the initial denial of entry and a temporary prohibition by the Supreme Court, mediation proceeded, resulting in the ICC Tribunal Award in 2015 to terminate the wrong contract for $ 562.5 million (plus interest, total $ 1.29 billion). Additional awards were given to Devas’s foreign investors, including $ 111 million by UNCITRAL for permanent court arbitration and Mauritius-based investors in Geneva.
Legal dimensions: US Supreme Court verdict
The US Supreme Court’s decision reversed the 2023 Ninth Circuit Court of appeals, which had rejected the suit based on jurisdiction, arguing that Antrix had a lack of adequate “minimum contacts” with the US to sue under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Supreme Court unanimously clarified that under the FSIA, individual jurisdiction exists when an immune exception is applied and service is appropriate, without “minimum contacts” analysis. Justice Samuel Alto, while writing to the court, emphasised that the “direct impact” standard of FSIA – where the commercial activity of a foreign state is a U.S. concrete effect caused within enoughestablish to jurisdiction. The matter was sent for further proceedings, allowing the Devas to carry forward the enforcement of the ICC award in the US courts.
Devas argued that the business activities of Antrix, such as Spaceflight Industries, DigitalGlobe, and PlanetiQ agreements with American companies, establish a judicial link. For example, the 2015 contract of Antrix quoted its behaviour with DigitalGlobe to launch satellites for PlanetiQ and satellite data distribution as evidence of American business relations. Additionally, the U.S. by ISRO’s satellite Communications Program. With the visit of 2009, he supported his case to meet companies such as Qualcomm and Hughes Network with Devas personnel.
In contrast, the entry and the Government of India said that the corporation enjoys security for a foreign corporation, as a state-owned unit, and lacks significant American trade attendance. He argued that there was no American interest in the original agreement, and the Supreme Court’s decision of 2022, which upheld the Delhi High Court’s decision to separate the ICC Award based on fraud, should be honoured under the International Committee. The Indian courts created Devas with a “Sham unit”, which was made with the intention of fraud, a discovery that led to the abolition of it by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in 2021.
Geopolitical Implications
The case crosses the only commercial dispute, touching sensitive geopolitical issues. U.S. The presentation of India in the Supreme Court, while arguing, implemented the award, disregarding the findings of the Indian judiciary and weakening India’s sovereignty. The Government of India sees the lawsuit as a “irritable” in bilateral relations, especially since it includes a state-owned unit for its space ambitions. Antrix’s lawyer, Carter G. Philips, stressed during oral arguments that the cancellation of the 2005 deal was based on national security concerns, not commercial purposes and lack of any American-related impact.
The ruling Western countries, especially the U.S., along with India’s relations, also highlight stress, where Indian property can be potentially seized to implement the award. Devas’s counsel, Matthew D. McGill, said that a favourable decision would be to investors and India’s assets to the U.S. Will allow to target in, which increases diplomatic friction.
It comes at a time when India is strengthening the global footprint of its space sector, and the successful missions of ISRO, such as Chandrayaan and Gaganyaan, keep it as a major player. A financial and prestigious blow to Antrix can affect India’s credibility in international space cooperation.
In addition, the case reflects extensive geopolitical mobility in the space industry. Strategic significance of S-Band spectrum, in collaboration with India’s alleged fraud, China and the U.S. The same is related to its efforts to regulate and secure important resources amidst competition with global powers, including the participation of foreign investors, including Deutsche Telekom and Mauritius-based institutions, gathering more information about mandals.
Legal-Geopolitical Nexus
The case of Antrix-Devas follows the intersection of domestic legal structure and international geopolitical strategies. Legally, it tests FSIA’s boundaries and the enforcement of arbitration awards in the courts. India’s argument for comity reflects the desire to protect its judicial sovereignty, while the pursuit of Devas in American courts takes advantage of international arbitration to challenge India’s functions. The rejection of the US Supreme Court’s “minimum contact” requirement strengthens the capacity of foreign institutions to seek prevention in American courts, possibly an example for equal disputes associated with state-owned enterprises.
Geopolitically, the case underlines India’s delicate balance as a growing power. The government’s 2011 decision to prioritise national security over commercial commitments reflects its strategic imperative in the region marked by China and Pakistan. However, international backlash, including many tribunal awards, highlights the risks of unilateral functions in a global economy. This matter also argues about India’s investment environment, especially as it wants to attract foreign capital by protecting national interests.
Looking Ahead
While this does not imply that the $1.29 billion will automatically be upheld, it does allow that the case continue within the U.S. legal system. India will probably continue to challenge the grant, citing its investigations to declare it as fraudulent, and it might invoke international courtesy amongst jurisdictions.
Devas and its investors, on the other hand, would probably increase efforts to capture Indian assets abroad, increasing tensions even more.
This protracted conflict has the potential to affect India-US relations at a particularly sensitive moment when the two countries are fostering an ever-deepening relationship, amongst other things, through the Quad. It exposes the entanglements between international arbitration and the domestic legal spectrum in cases where government-backed companies are concerned.
In the case of India, this should be a wake-up call. With the development of the country’s space industry, it must bolster legal protections that will allow for innovation while also protecting the national interest.
References:
- https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/antrix-moves-civil-court-against-devas-arbitration-process/article2875237.ece
- https://thewire.in/science/us-supreme-court-rules-1-29-bn-lawsuit-against-isro-owned-antrix-to-continue
Megna Devkar is a Ph.D. Research Scholar at K.C. Law College with research and writing expertise in social, political, and legal issues. Views expressed are the author’s own.
Dhruv Ashok 
Archita Gaur 
Sughosh Joshi