The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken an unprecedented step by requesting a federal court for authorization to personally serve summons via email to Indian billionaire Gautam Adani and his nephew, Sagar Adani. This move comes after the US market regulator faced significant hurdles in its attempts to serve legal documents through official channels.
India's Ministry of Law and Justice Rejects SEC Requests
According to court documents, the SEC has revealed that India's Ministry of Law and Justice has twice rejected its requests to serve summons to the Adani executives under the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. These rejections occurred over the past fourteen months, creating a substantial obstacle in the SEC's legal proceedings.
In a detailed letter dated January 21, 2026, SEC counsel Christopher M. Colorado outlined the challenges faced by the regulatory body. "Approximately fourteen months ago, the SEC filed charges against Defendants Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani, prominent Indian business leaders, arising from a $750 million bond offering that raised $175 million from US investors," Colorado wrote.
Legal Representation and Public Statements
The SEC letter further noted that despite the legal challenges, the Adani defendants have been actively engaged in the process. "Since then, Defendants have retained three US law firms and issued multiple public statements denying the SEC's allegations, and their companies have filed regulatory disclosures acknowledging this lawsuit," the SEC disclosed.
According to SEC filings, Sagar Adani has retained the services of Hecker Fink LLP, while Gautam Adani has engaged both Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP as his legal representatives. Hecker Fink confirmed its representation to the SEC on December 4, 2024, while Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Quinn Emanuel informed the SEC about their representation on February 28, 2025.
Background: The $250 Million Bribery Allegations
The legal action stems from serious allegations made by US prosecutors on November 20, 2024. Federal authorities claimed that approximately $250 million in bribes were paid to unnamed Indian officials to secure favorable terms on solar power contracts awarded to Adani Green Energy Ltd and Azure Power Global Ltd, another New Delhi-headquartered company.
The Federal prosecutors indicted a total of eight individuals for allegedly orchestrating these bribery payments to Indian government officials between 2020 and 2024. These payments were reportedly made to obtain lucrative solar-energy contracts through corrupt means.
SEC's Civil Investigation and DOJ's Criminal Probe
According to the indictment documents, Adani Green Energy Ltd raised approximately $2 billion from American and foreign investors based on what prosecutors describe as false and misleading statements about the company's anti-corruption and anti-bribery efforts. This revelation prompted two separate but related investigations by US authorities.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has opened a criminal investigation into the matter, while the SEC is pursuing a civil investigation against Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, and the then Adani Green Energy chief executive Vineet Jain. These parallel investigations represent significant legal challenges for the Adani Group.
Adani Group's Response to Allegations
The Adani Group has consistently denied all allegations made by US authorities. In multiple statements, the conglomerate has characterized the accusations as "baseless" and reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining the highest standards of corporate governance and regulatory compliance.
The group has emphasized its adherence to legal and ethical business practices while expressing confidence in its ability to successfully navigate these legal challenges through proper judicial channels.
Implications for International Legal Cooperation
The SEC's request for court permission to serve summons via email highlights the complexities of international legal proceedings when traditional diplomatic channels face obstacles. The rejection of Hague Convention requests by India's Ministry of Law and Justice raises questions about cross-border legal cooperation mechanisms.
This case represents a significant test of how regulatory bodies can pursue legal action against foreign nationals when standard international legal protocols encounter resistance from sovereign governments.
