Diplomatic Roadblock Pushes US SEC to Seek Direct Action in Adani Case

After months of diplomatic stalemate, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has moved a federal court seeking permission to serve legal summonses on Gautam Adani and his nephew Sagar Adani through alternative methods, signalling a breakdown in cooperation through official Indian channels.

In an application filed on January 21 before the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the SEC asked the court to allow service of summonses via the Adanis’ US-based attorneys and electronic communication. The regulator said its efforts to rely on the Hague Convention mechanism through India’s Ministry of Law and Justice had failed after more than a year of unproductive exchanges.

According to the SEC, repeated attempts to complete service through India’s designated Central Authority yielded no results, prompting the agency to conclude that the conventional route was no longer viable.

The case relates to a civil action initiated by the SEC in November 2024, in which Gautam Adani, chairman of Adani Green Energy Ltd, and Sagar Adani, an executive director of the company, were accused of participating in an alleged bribery arrangement involving Indian public officials.

The allegations stem from a bond issuance conducted in September 2021, when Adani Green Energy raised approximately $175 million from investors in the United States as part of a larger fundraising exercise. The SEC claims that investor disclosures made at the time failed to accurately reflect risks associated with corruption-related safeguards.

Simultaneously, criminal proceedings were launched by the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, accusing the two executives of securities fraud conspiracy, wire fraud conspiracy and related offences. The Adani Group has publicly rejected the accusations, describing them as unfounded and stating that it will contest the matter through legal channels.

Court filings show that the SEC first attempted service under the Hague Convention in February 2025, forwarding documents to India’s Ministry of Law and Justice, which then transmitted them to a court in Ahmedabad. The documents were returned unserved two months later, with authorities citing technical deficiencies—an explanation the SEC disputes.

A second attempt made in May 2025 reportedly drew no response, while further follow-ups also failed to elicit action. In December 2025, Indian authorities raised an additional objection, arguing that the summonses did not meet certain internal regulatory criteria. The SEC dismissed the objection, stating that it had no relevance to international service obligations.

With diplomatic avenues exhausted, the SEC has now urged the court to invoke Rule 4(f)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The agency contends that serving notices through legal counsel and known professional email addresses would ensure proper notice, particularly as the defendants are already aware of the proceedings and are engaged in defending themselves.