A social activist has moved the Supreme Court seeking a CBI probe into allegations that Adani Green Energy and its associates paid bribes to secure solar power contracts in multiple States. The plea also challenges the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of the petition and its adverse remarks against the petitioner.
Social activist Jitendra Punamchand Maru approached the Supreme Court of India seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into allegations that Adani Green Energy Ltd and its associates paid crores of rupees in bribes to secure solar power contracts across several Indian States.
The plea challenges a Bombay High Court judgment that had earlier dismissed his petition, including the adverse remarks the High Court made against him personally.
At the heart of the matter are allegations of the payment or promise of bribes worth Rs.2,029 crore to government officials and State power distribution companies (DISCOMs), allegedly to induce them to enter into power purchase and supply agreements at inflated tariffs.
ALSO READ: “Gautam Adani Charged for Securities Fraud Conspiracy”: Adani Green
Maru alleges an organised bribery scheme involving Adani Green Energy and Azure Global, a Delhi-based renewable energy company.
According to the plea, the scheme centred on a 2019 tender floated by the Solar Energy Corporation of India for manufacturing-linked solar projects, under which Adani Green and Azure were awarded projects to supply 8 gigawatts and 4 gigawatts of solar power respectively.
The appeal contends that State distribution companies were initially unwilling to purchase the power because of the tariffs involved, and that bribes were then paid or promised to officials to secure power supply agreements.
The States named include Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra and Jammu and Kashmir. The material underlying these claims is drawn from a US Department of Justice (DOJ) criminal indictment and parallel proceedings before the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
By a judgment dated March 27, 2026, the Bombay High Court dismissed Maru’s petition, terming it a clear abuse of the process of the Court. The Bench observed that petitions of this nature including those presented as public interest litigation are 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 support the conclusion that he was a competitor, a disgruntled person, or acting at the instance of a rival business house.
The appeal states that there was not a single document on record, nor any suggestion, that the petitioner fell into any such category and had therefore filed the petition.
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. He has further submitted that if the High Court harboured doubts about his credibility, it ought to have given him an opportunity to file an affidavit explaining his background and standing.
The appeal also disputes the High Court’s finding on delay. It points out that while the alleged offences occurred between 2020 and 2024, the US proceedings became public only in November 2024. Maru says he obtained certified copies of the US DOJ indictment and the SEC civil complaints in January 2025, sent complaints to the CBI on October 21 and October 29, 2025, and then approached the High Court in November.
Maru has asked the Supreme Court to set aside the Bombay High Court judgment and to direct the registration of an FIR and a CBI investigation into the allegations.
The plea has been filed through advocate Ashishkumar Madanprasad Verma. The Adani Group has consistently denied all such allegations as baseless.
Case Title: Jitendra Maru Vs CBI