Does Indian Parliament have no business discussing Adani?

The Lok Sabha functioned for 13 minutes on Thursday and the Rajya Sabha for 16 minutes. Both Houses were then adjourned for the day with the speaker and the Rajya Sabha chairman rejecting motions and notices to suspend the day’s business for a discussion on the criminal and civil indictment of Gautam Adani, his nephew Sagar Adani and Adani Group executives in the United States.

The adjournment of the Houses for the rest of the day ironically took care of the remaining business. This pattern was witnessed for the third consecutive day since the winter session began on 25 November.

The speaker and chairman have blamed the Opposition for "not allowing" the Houses to function. Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar has been adjourning the House by pointing out that rule 267 states that business can be suspended only with the consent of the chair. He was acting on a strict and narrow reading of the rule which states that the rule could be invoked to discuss subjects listed in the day’s business.

That rule was amended in 2000 by the Rules Committee of the Rajya Sabha, which observed that MPs were using rule 267 to “seek discussion either on a matter not listed in the agenda for the particular day or on a subject that has not yet been admitted”.

The committee thus recommended an amendment to tighten the rule only to allow the suspension of a rule for a matter “related to the business listed before the Council of that day”. It also added a proviso that if an existing procedure allowed suspending rules (like suspension of Question Hour), an MP could not use 267. So now, 267 can be used only to suspend a rule, only to take up matters that are already on the list of business.

Effectively, this ensures that the government never lists any subject that it does not want to discuss. The chairman can circumvent the rule by giving his consent to a discussion that the Opposition wants, but clearly, the leader of the House is unlikely to agree. So the stalemate continues, with each side waiting for the other to blink first.

It cannot be anybody’s case that the Indian Parliament has no business discussing the indictment of one of the most successful business houses in the country. The involvement of the Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI) under the ministry of renewable energy, and the power ministry’s role in forcing states to purchase 10 per cent of their energy requirement at ‘whatever be the cost’ from solar power developers deserve some explanation.

Neither SECI nor SEBI (Securities Exchange Board of India) or the government of India have been indicted in the case investigated by the FBI and prosecuted by the US Department of Justice. It is now known, however, that the Adani Group violated SEBI regulations by not informing it of the US investigation, though they had been served with a search warrant on 17 March 2023, and electronic devices belonging to Sagar Adani were seized by the FBI.

A discussion in Parliament is also necessary because India’s ambitious target of augmenting renewable energy capacity, other than hydel power, is hit. It is running way behind schedule, projects are nearing completion but there are no bidders, and there are reports that even Adani Green is failing to deliver solar energy on time to Andhra Pradesh despite an agreement, even as it sells solar energy to others at rates higher than the ‘market price’.

Remarkably, neither SEBI nor the Government of India nor the power ministry have come out to answer the following questions:

1. Why is SECI headed by a retired IAS officer from the Gujarat cadre?

2. What prompted SECI to enter into long-term and 25-year power purchase agreements with Adani Green at exorbitant rates?

3. Why did the power ministry force states to buy solar energy at ‘whatever the cost’?

4. Who gave the Government of India the authority to ensure that Indian power consumers keep paying unreasonably high rates for energy?

5. Why has SEBI pretended to be in the dark about the US investigation despite having a system in place to share information with the US Securities Exchange Commission?

6. Why is SEBI silent on the charge that the Adani Group violated regulations by not informing investors and SEBI about the US investigation?

7. Why did SECI enter into PPAs with discoms despite the knowledge that the rates demanded by the Adani Group company was not in the interest of consumers?

The continued silence of the government makes a discussion in Parliament imperative. The Lok Sabha speaker and the Rajya Sabha chairman may not be under any obligation to explain their conduct or state reasons for not allowing a discussion, but they must ensure a discussion at the first opportunity in the national interest.