Rahul Gandhi has accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of placing Gautam Adani’s legal troubles in the United States ahead of India’s trade interests, escalating a political confrontation over the interim trade framework with Washington and the expected winding down of US enforcement action against the billionaire-led group.
Gandhi, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, alleged that Modi had not secured a trade deal but had struck “a bargain for Adani’s release”, linking the claim to reports that US authorities were moving towards resolving criminal, civil and Treasury-related proceedings involving Adani and his associates. His remarks mark a sharper turn in the Congress campaign to cast the India-US trade understanding as a political concession rather than a commercial negotiation.
The allegation came after US market regulators settled a civil case against Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani over claims tied to alleged non-disclosure of a bribery scheme connected with solar energy contracts. Court filings showed civil penalties of $6 million for Gautam Adani and $12 million for Sagar Adani, with no admission or denial of wrongdoing. Parallel criminal proceedings filed in 2024 in New York were also reported to be close to being dropped.
Adani Group has consistently denied wrongdoing. The conglomerate has maintained that the allegations are baseless and has sought to distance its business operations from the US proceedings, while investors have watched closely for signs that the legal overhang on ports, power, renewables and infrastructure assets may ease.
The original US indictment, unsealed in November 2024, accused Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and other executives of participating in an alleged scheme involving more than $250 million in bribes to secure solar power contracts, while raising funds from US and international investors through allegedly misleading statements. The case was brought in the Eastern District of New York and involved securities fraud, wire fraud and related conspiracy allegations.
Congress leaders have seized on the timing of the legal developments, arguing that the trade framework with the US included concessions that favoured Washington. Jairam Ramesh, the party’s communications chief, also questioned whether the settlement path in the Adani matter explained what he described as a one-sided trade arrangement. The party has not produced documentary evidence showing that the trade negotiations and US legal proceedings were formally linked.
The government has rejected opposition attacks on its economic diplomacy and has presented the interim trade framework as part of a wider effort to stabilise commerce with the US. The February joint statement on the framework said India would reduce or eliminate tariffs on US industrial goods and a wide range of farm products, while Washington would cut tariff pressure on exports from India.
Trade officials have continued negotiations towards a broader bilateral trade agreement, with a US delegation expected to visit India for further talks. The discussions cover tariffs, market access, energy purchases, farm goods, industrial products and supply-chain cooperation, with both sides seeking to prevent trade friction from damaging a relationship that also spans defence, technology and strategic cooperation.
Gandhi’s attack fits a longer Congress argument that Modi’s government has favoured Adani Group through policy, infrastructure contracts and diplomatic access. The Prime Minister and the Bharatiya Janata Party have repeatedly dismissed such charges as politically motivated, while pointing to Adani Group’s scale as a private enterprise operating across heavily regulated sectors.
The controversy has landed at a sensitive moment for New Delhi’s economic policy. India is seeking relief from US tariff pressure, expanded access for services and goods, and greater certainty for exporters. Washington, under President Donald Trump, has pressed trading partners for lower barriers, increased energy purchases and greater opening for US agricultural and industrial products.
For the opposition, the Adani issue provides a bridge between corporate governance, foreign policy and domestic politics. Gandhi has framed the matter as one involving public interest and institutional accountability, rather than a dispute over one conglomerate. His latest comments also revive questions over whether large corporate groups with political access can shape policy choices in areas ranging from trade to regulation.
For the government, the challenge is to separate trade diplomacy from the legal decisions of US agencies and courts. Any impression that tariff concessions were tied to relief in a corporate case would carry political costs, though no official record has established such a link.
