"Every defendant's right is significant": Raian Karanjawala on US DoJ reply in Adani case
New Delhi, July 6
The US Justice Department defended its move to drop the alleged criminal bribery case against Adani Group Chairman Gautam Adani. Legal experts noted that the detailed nature of the latest filing came after the court demanded a more thorough explanation than the government's initial request.
"Here, the Department of Justice has said, look, we feel that there is no real case of prosecution made out. All the offenses, even if they're as alleged, are outside India in a real sense. Why should our time, effort, and energy be gone in prosecuting a case which we don't think we are going to succeed in?" Raian Karanjawala, Managing Partner of Karanjawala & Company, said while speaking to ANI.
"And as a result of that, and also the defendant has rights. One of them is also his ability to do business in jurisdictions like America. So all these factors were taken into consideration. And of course, they have a significance. Every defendant's right is significant," Karanjawala added.
The US Department of Justice in its reply said that forcing prosecutors to spell out their reasoning in detail could undermine constitutional authority over prosecutorial decisions. Prosecutors say the alleged case took place in India and it was not appropriate for US prosecutors to get into it.
"What happened here was when the Department of Justice first filed its application to take back the case and seek the leave of and the consent of the court to withdraw, they'd filed a one line application, which basically said that we do not want to use our resources on this case," Karanjawala said.
"Now the judge, in what was at that time considered to be a slightly out of the normal way, asked the Department of Justice for more details. They have therefore, this time, not taken any chances. They have in a very direct and detailed way stated all the reasons that weighed with them or most of the reasons that weighed with them as a result of which they no longer want to prosecute," Karanjawala said.
Karanjawala stated that the defense team had previously raised these jurisdictional and factual arguments with American authorities.
"The real thing is, was there a case made out or was there not a case made out? Adani's lawyers had initially made all these points to the Department of Justice," Karanjawala said. "It was deliberated on, it took a little bit of time and then ultimately the Department of Justice has accepted the contention of the Adani group that yes, this is not a fit case to prosecute and therefore they've gone to the court to ask for a leave to withdraw."
The US DoJ in its reply had argued that the case was weak due to evidentiary problems. It further said that most of the alleged evidence was based in India making US prosecution difficult.
The case against Gautam Adani and others had alleged a bribery scheme linked to solar power contracts in India which further allegedly misled US investors. In May this year the US DoJ had moved to dismiss these charges following which the US Court of the Eastern District of New York has sought a reply from the DoJ. With that reply cementing the US DoJ's position, legal experts argue that the Judge in all likelihood would back the DoJ stand.
— ANI
Reader Comments
I'm glad the DoJ took time to deliberate and didn't just rush into a decision. The detailed explanation shows they considered all angles - jurisdictional issues, evidence location, and the defendant's rights. This is how justice should work, regardless of who the person is. Kudos to the legal team for their persistence.
This is a great example of rule of law. The judge rightly asked for more details, and the DoJ responded with a thorough filing. Whether you support Adani or not, you have to appreciate the legal process here. It's not about one person, it's about how the system treats every defendant fairly.
While I'm happy for Adani group, I hope this doesn't set a precedent for ignoring serious allegations just because they happened in another country. The US DoJ should still investigate cases that involve misleading their investors, regardless of where the primary evidence is. A balanced approach is needed.
The key point for me is the jurisdictional argument. If the alleged bribes and contracts were in India, and most witnesses and evidence are here, then why should US courts adjudicate? India's own investigative agencies should handle this if there's any merit. That's sovereignty, plain and simple. 🇮🇳
As an American, I appreciate that our DoJ is being transparent about why they're dropping this. But I'm a bit concerned about the initial 'one line application' - that seemed sloppy. At least they've corrected course and given a proper explanation now. Fair process for all parties involved.
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.