Listen to this article:

New Delhi: Forced by a federal judge to explain its abrupt decision to abandon the criminal prosecution of billionaire Gautam Adani, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) on Saturday (July 4) accused the previous Biden administration of bringing a politically motivated “name and shame” case, and wrongly claimed that Indian authorities had already investigated many of the allegations and found “no actionable misconduct”.

Interestingly, the three Indian decisions appended to the DOJ filing show that none examined the alleged bribery scheme that forms the basis of the US indictment.

The ten-page submission, filed before Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Friday, came in response to the judge’s June 26 order refusing to immediately approve the department’s request to dismiss with prejudice the indictment against Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, Vneet Jaain and five others.

Calling the DOJ’s original dismissal motion “terse, bland and conclusory”, Garaufis had directed prosecutors to explain “each reason” for seeking dismissal and provide “sufficient factual support” before the court could decide whether to approve it. 

Among the department’s principal justifications for seeking dismissal was its contention that Indian authorities had already examined many of the allegations underpinning the case.

“India has investigated many of the allegations in this case and in several reports and decisions issued in 2026 has found no actionable misconduct,” Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter wrote. He added that after reviewing the attached Indian decisions, “the country with by far the strongest interest here seems to have concluded nothing inappropriate happened.”

A closer reading of the three annexures, however, shows that none adjudicated the alleged bribery scheme at the heart of the US indictment.

The first is an April 2026 order of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) dismissing a complaint alleging anti-competitive conduct in the award of Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI) renewable energy contracts. 

Although the complainant relied extensively on the US indictment, including its allegations that Adani executives bribed Indian state officials to secure power purchase agreements, the commission confined itself to determining whether the material disclosed a prima facie violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act governing anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominance. 

It did not examine whether public officials had received illegal payments. Instead, the CCI concluded that the complainant had failed to produce evidence of anti-competitive conduct or establish that Adani Group occupied a dominant position in the relevant market. It noted that India’s power sector included several large public and private players, including NTPC, Power Grid Corporation, Tata Power and Torrent Power, and held that there was “no prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act warranting an investigation into the matter.”

The second annexure is a Delhi high court judgment dated March 10, 2026 dismissing a public interest litigation filed by the as the CCI comp challenging aspects of the SECI tender process and the subsequent transfer of Azure Power’s project capacity to Adani Green........

© The Wire