US DoJ’s hard-hitting defence of Adani case withdrawal leaves little room for judge: Harish Salve
Senior Advocate Harish Salve said the alleged case against Ad and others was filed as a “name and shame” exercise designed to get the charges removed without any possibility of trial.
Salve stated that the original indictment reflected a broader political agenda rather than a standard legal process.
“I have always said, at least in my view, the timing of this has led to the Biden administration having a persistent anti-India narrative,” Salve told ANI. “There are senators out there, I don’t want to name names, who are constantly saying India is bad on human rights, India is this, India is corrupt, and they are trying to make India look bad. And they were trying to put pressure on India. I don’t think it’s a secret. The Biden administration was not in love with India. That’s why they’re saying it. They said it was presented as a ‘name and shame’ scheme to rack up charges without any possibility of trial. It’s a political move.”
In its response, the U.S. Justice Department said that forcing prosecutors to explain their reasoning in detail could undermine constitutional authority over prosecutorial decisions. Prosecutors say the alleged case took place in India and that it was inappropriate for U.S. prosecutors to become involved.
In its response, the U.S. Department of Justice argued that the case was weak due to evidentiary problems. He also said most of the alleged evidence was found in India, making it difficult to prosecute in the United States.
Legal experts noted that the Justice Department’s hardline stance left the presiding judge little room to keep the case alive. “Is the judge going to close the case anytime soon? I think he’ll have to close it. He might have to close it after that. So I don’t see why he won’t close it,” Salve said. “If he doesn’t close it, they escalate it to a bigger issue for them. And I finish the issue by saying that the Constitution wastes the prosecution power of the executive, not the judiciary. They are telling the judge that we should decide whether the trial will take place or not, not you.”
The Senior Counsel also observed that the tone used by the US Department of Justice in its response to the court was quite harsh, even when taking into account the direct nature of legal communications in America.
“Look, because the judge, the attorney general’s office is obviously offended. Look, American English, the way they address the courts and the way they write, is very different from even the language that English people use here in England. And India, of course, is even different. America is more direct. Even their decisions are in more direct language. So you have to take that into account. Even by American standards, that’s a pretty harsh statement.”
“They even said they were dissatisfied. They should never have filed this lawsuit,” Salve added.
The lawsuit against Gautam Adani and others alleged that a bribery scheme linked to solar energy contracts in India further misled U.S. investors. In May of this year, the US Department of Justice moved to dismiss these charges, after which the US Court of Appeals for the Eastern District of New York requested a response from the Department of Justice. With this response strengthening the U.S. Department of Justice’s position, legal experts suggest that the Judge will likely support the Justice Department’s stance.
