CURRENT AFFAIRS | MARCH 28, 2026
CLAT GK + CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
The Bombay High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into allegations of bribery involving Adani Green Energy Limited. The PIL, filed by a social activist, sought directions for a CBI investigation based on a US Department of Justice indictment that alleged Adani Group executives had paid approximately $265 million in bribes to Indian state government officials to secure solar energy contracts. The court held that the petitioner had failed to establish a prima facie case warranting judicial intervention in the investigation process.
The Bombay HC bench, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, observed that courts must exercise restraint in directing specific investigative agencies to probe matters unless there is evidence of manifest injustice, gross negligence by existing agencies, or violation of fundamental rights. The court noted that regulatory bodies including SEBI had already initiated proceedings related to disclosure norms, and that the Enforcement Directorate was examining the foreign exchange dimensions of the allegations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002.
Constitutional & Legal Framework
- Article 226: High Courts can issue writs for enforcement of Fundamental Rights AND for any other purpose — wider jurisdiction than Article 32 (Supreme Court, limited to Fundamental Rights only).
- Article 32: Right to Constitutional Remedies — described by Dr. Ambedkar as the “heart and soul of the Constitution.”
- Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act 1946: The statutory basis for CBI; it has no constitutional mandate.
- Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (amended 2018): Section 7 (public servants taking bribes) and Section 8 (giving bribes — introduced by 2018 amendment).
- CrPC Section 156(3): Empowers Magistrates to order investigation; used by courts to direct CBI probes in exceptional cases.
- US FCPA (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act): Applies to US-listed companies globally; relevant since Adani Green has US-listed bonds.
- Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): PIL was first recognized — relaxed locus standi for public-spirited citizens.
- Common Cause v. Union of India (2017): Court can direct CBI investigation only in “rare and exceptional” circumstances where the integrity of the investigation is in doubt.
The case raises fundamental questions about the scope of judicial review over investigation processes. The doctrine of separation of powers limits the judiciary’s ability to dictate which agency should investigate a particular offence. The Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP (2014) held that registration of FIR is mandatory upon receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence, but the choice of investigating agency generally rests with the executive. In State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010), the Supreme Court carved an exception, holding that a High Court under Article 226 can transfer investigation to the CBI when state police investigation is tainted by political influence.
Why This Matters for CLAT 2027
This case is a goldmine for CLAT legal reasoning. It tests the distinction between Article 226 and Article 32, the concept of PIL and locus standi, the statutory basis of CBI (DSPE Act 1946 — not the Constitution), the Prevention of Corruption Act’s 2018 amendment criminalising bribe-giving, and the doctrine of separation of powers in the context of judicial direction for investigation. The cross-border dimension involving the US FCPA adds an international law angle that CLAT increasingly tests.
The PIL’s dismissal also highlights the evolving judicial approach to PIL misuse. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against “publicity interest litigation” and “personal interest litigation” masquerading as public interest cases. In Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018), the court warned that PILs should not be used as a tool for settling corporate rivalries or political scores. The Bombay HC’s decision aligns with this approach, requiring petitioners to demonstrate a concrete violation of rights rather than making speculative allegations based on foreign judicial proceedings.
Key Facts at a Glance
| What | Bombay HC dismissed PIL seeking CBI probe into Adani Green bribery |
| Allegation | $265 million in bribes to secure solar energy contracts (per US DOJ indictment) |
| Court | Bombay High Court (CJ Upadhyaya & J. Arif Doctor) |
| When | March 2026 |
| Reasoning | No prima facie case; SEBI and ED already examining; separation of powers |
| Legal Provisions | Articles 226, 32; DSPE Act 1946; PCA 1988 (amended 2018); CrPC S.156(3); FCPA |
Memory Mnemonic
PROBE: P — PIL dismissed by Bombay HC | R — Restraint doctrine (separation of powers) | O — Other agencies (SEBI, ED) already active | B — Bribery under PCA 1988 (Section 7 & 8) | E — Exceptional circumstances needed for CBI direction (Common Cause 2017)
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
