Plea in Supreme Court seeks CBI probe into Adani bribery allegations in solar power case

A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into allegations that crores of bribes were paid by Adani Green Energy Ltd and its associates to secure solar power contracts across several Indian States [Jitendra Maru Vs CBI].

The plea has been filed by social activist Jitendra Punamchand Maru.

The matter involves allegations of payment or promise of bribes worth ₹2,029 crore to government officials and power distribution companies in several States to secure solar power contracts.

Maru had earlier moved the Bombay High Court with his plea for a CBI probe into the matter, citing material drawn from a US criminal indictment and parallel Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proceedings.

He alleged that there was an organised bribery scheme involving Adani Green Energy and Azure Global, a Delhi‑based renewable energy company. 

The scheme purportedly involved an agreement to pay over ₹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.

By a March 27 judgment, the Bombay High Court dismissed Maru’s petition, terming it a clear abuse of the court's process.

The High Court had observed that petitions of this nature, including those presented as public interest litigation, were often filed at the instance of failed competitors, rival business houses or disgruntled persons. It held that Maru had failed to establish his bona fides or locus standi and had not approached the Court with clean hands.

Maru has now contended that there was no material to conclude that he was a competitor, disgruntled person or acting at the instance of a rival business house.

“There was also not a single document on record or anyone’s suggestion that the Petitioner was/is a ‘competitor/ rival business house/ disgruntled person’ and has therefore filed the present petition,” the appeal states.

Maru, who told the High Court that he was retired and had earlier been engaged in the plastics business, has argued that the judgment does not explain the “private interest” or “oblique motive” attributed to him by the Court.

He has further submitted that if the High Court had doubts about his credibility, it should have given him an opportunity to file an affidavit explaining his background and standing.

The appeal also disputes the High Court’s finding regarding delay. It says the alleged offences occurred between 2020 and 2024, while the proceedings in the United States became public only in November 2024.

Maru said he obtained certified copies of the US Department of Justice indictment and civil complaints filed by the US SEC in January 2025. He subsequently sent complaints to the CBI on October 21 and October 29, 2025, before approaching the High Court in November.

The allegations arise from a 2019 tender floated by the Solar Energy Corporation of India for manufacturing-linked solar projects. Adani Green and Azure were awarded projects involving the supply of 8 gigawatts and 4 gigawatts of solar power, respectively.

According to the appeal, State distribution companies were initially unwilling to purchase the power because of the tariffs involved. It alleges that bribes were then paid or promised to officials to secure power supply agreements in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra and Jammu and Kashmir.

Maru has asked the Supreme Court to set aside the Bombay High Court judgment and direct the registration of an FIR and a CBI investigation into the allegations.

The plea has been filed through advocate Ashishkumar Madanprasad Verma.