|
The US Department of Justice (DoJ) strongly defended its decision to drop the high-profile charges of the alleged criminal bribery case against Gautam Adani, citing evidentiary weakness, jurisdictional overreach, and constitutional limits on judicial power.
The alleged case against Adani and others was filed merely as a "name and shame" exercise designed to levy accusations without any prospect of a trial occurring, said Senior Advocate Harish Salve. Salve stated that the original indictment reflected a broader political agenda rather than a standard legal proceeding. "This is what I have always said, at least it was my view, that the timing of this was such that the Biden administration had a constant anti-India narrative running," Salve told ANI. "There are senators there, I don't want to name them, who constantly have this India's bad on human rights, India's this, India's corrupt all the time trying to paint India in a bad light. And they were trying to pressure India. I don't think it's any secret. The Biden administration was not in love with India. That's why they are saying. They said it was filed as a 'name and shame' design to levy accusations without any prospect of any trial occurring. It was a political move." 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. 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. Legal experts noted that the firm stance taken by the DoJ leaves the presiding judge with very little room to keep the matter alive. "Will the judge close the case soon? I think he will have to. After this, he may have to. I mean, I don't see why he will not close it," Salve said. "If he doesn't close, for them, they are raising it to a larger issue. I'd end by saying it is the Constitution wastes the prosecutorial power in the executive not the judiciary. They are telling the judge whether to prosecute or not is for us to decide, not for you." The Senior Advocate also observed that the tone used by the US Justice Department in its response to the court was remarkably firm, even when accounting for the direct nature of American legal communications. "See, because the judge, the attorney general's office obviously has taken offense. See, American English, the way they address courts and the way they write, it's very different from even the British here in England, the kind of language we use. And India, of course, is even more differential. America is more direct. Even their judgments are in more direct language. So you have to account for that. even by the American standard, this is a pretty hard hitting statement." "They even said that they were not satisfied. They should never have brought this case," Salve added. 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 teh the Judge in all likelihood would back the DoJ stand. (ANI)
|
