The Bombay High Court on 27 March 2026 dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register an FIR against Adani Green Energy Limited under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Suman Shyam termed the petition an "abuse of process" and held that the petitioner lacked the standing to maintain the writ.
Background
The petition was filed by Jitendra P. Maru, a 61-year-old resident of Silvassa, invoking the Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner alleged that Adani Green Energy had agreed to pay over Rs 2,000 crore in bribes to officials of State power distribution companies (DISCOMs) in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Jammu and Kashmir to induce them to enter into power purchase and supply agreements at inflated tariffs. The petitioner sought a CBI investigation based on these allegations, which had also been the subject of proceedings in the United States.
The matter gained public attention following an indictment returned by a United States federal grand jury in 2024 against certain Adani Group entities and individuals in connection with alleged bribery of Indian government officials related to solar energy contracts.
Key Holdings
The Division Bench dismissed the petition on multiple grounds:
No locus standi: The Court found that the petitioner failed to establish his bona fide or any direct connection to the subject matter. The petition did not demonstrate how the petitioner was personally affected by the alleged bribery or what public interest was being served.
Unclean hands: The Bench held that the petitioner did not approach the Court with clean hands, although the specific basis for this finding was not elaborated in the available reports.
No public purpose served: The Court concluded that the petition did not serve any identifiable public purpose and was instead likely to cause harm to the reputation and business prospects of the corporate group.
Abuse of process: The petition was characterised as an abuse of the Court's writ jurisdiction, with the Bench noting that the extraordinary power under Article 226 cannot be invoked on the basis of allegations drawn from foreign proceedings without independent domestic verification.
Implications for Practitioners
The judgment underscores the Bombay High Court's rigorous approach to locus standi in public interest petitions seeking CBI investigations into corporate entities. Practitioners should note that courts are increasingly scrutinising the credentials and motivation of petitioners who seek to leverage foreign legal proceedings as the basis for domestic investigative action.
For corporate clients facing allegations originating in foreign jurisdictions, this order provides a degree of comfort that Indian courts will not automatically treat foreign indictments or proceedings as sufficient grounds for directing domestic criminal investigations.
However, the dismissal is on procedural and standing grounds rather than on the merits of the underlying bribery allegations. The question of whether Indian investigating agencies may independently pursue the matter remains open.