RP Gupta, a retired 1987-batch IAS officer from the Gujarat cadre, has found himself at the center of a growing controversy. During my tenure as the Times of India correspondent in Gandhinagar (1997–2012), I often interacted with him. He struck me as a straightforward officer, though I never quite understood why he was never appointed to what are supposed to be top-tier departments like industries, energy and petrochemicals, finance, or revenue.
An aeronautical engineering graduate from IIT Kanpur, Gupta was posted in the education department—though not as its overall head. He handled primary education for two years until 2012, working directly under Hasmukh Adhia, a known confidante of then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.
Later, Gupta served as Gujarat’s rural development commissioner and settlement commissioner—offices tucked away in the Old Sachivalaya. Even in these so-called side-lined roles, he left his mark by modernizing systems under the National Land Records Modernization Programme (NLRMP) in 2009–10, introducing technology to make governance more responsive and people-centric.
During his stint in the education department, I recall his colleagues—both senior and junior—were quite pleased with him. Each year, during the Kanya Kelavani school enrollment drive, state officials were dispatched to remote villages, not only to ensure children's enrollment but also to file detailed reports. Unlike many others, Gupta spared them from the bureaucratic burden of filling out cumbersome forms.
He was known for his transparency and didn’t shy away from voicing dissent. While overseeing primary education, Gupta openly expressed concern over the "Taluka Sarkar" scheme launched by Modi. Though the scheme aimed to decentralize administration, Gupta was critical of how it was implemented. It pulled away several key officers from the education department, weakening oversight of vital programs like the Rs 600-crore midday meal scheme, which depended on these officials for monitoring quality and delivery.
After my retirement, I lost track of Gupta—until May 11, 2025, when I read news about his suddenly removal as chairman and managing director of the PSU Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI) “with immediate effect.” No official reason was provided. However, whispers in the Sachivalaya suggest that his ouster was linked to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) bribery allegations against the Adani Group, supposedly in an effort to appease U.S. authorities.
According Moneylife, the bribes—amounting to $250 million—were allegedly offered to officials of state discoms (short form for power distribution companies), which agreed to purchase 7,000 MW of solar power from SECI under a manufacturing-linked project. Gupta, it seems, became the fall guy in this saga.
An insider confided to me, “From all indications, Gupta was sacrificed to save face in the Adani case. His term at SECI was ending in just a month—so why the abrupt removal if not to signal action to U.S. regulators?”
Transferred to Government of India in 2015, Gupta, who retired in 2021 as Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, had earlier served in key roles in the Ministry of Coal and NITI Aayog. His sudden dismissal as SECI chief appears to be tied to a different, though connected, scandal—alleged procedural lapses involving Anil Ambani’s Reliance Power Ltd and Reliance NU BESS Ltd.
Dalal notes that U.S. regulators accuse the Adani group of orchestrating a $265 million bribery scheme to secure power purchase agreements (PPAs) from discoms via SECI. These deals were crucial to Adani Green’s ambition to build the world’s largest solar energy project. SECI is accused of facilitating PPAs with Adani and its partner Azure at rates significantly above market prices—placing an unnecessary burden on discoms in states like Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, J&K, and Tamil Nadu.
Dalal asks: Why would a central PSU like SECI agree to such inflated rates without state consultation or viability assessment? “High solar prices only hurt Indian consumers,” she warns.
Following Azure’s withdrawal from a 2,333 MW portion of the 7,000 MW deal in late 2024, SECI initially debarred Reliance Power and Reliance NU BESS for submitting fake documents. But that decision was reversed, and a Delhi High Court later granted interim relief to Reliance NU BESS. Eventually, Reliance secured a 25-year PPA to develop Asia’s largest solar-plus-storage project.
Many IAS officers believe Gupta couldn’t have approved PPAs involving Adani, Azure, or Reliance without higher-level sanction from the Government of India. One senior bureaucrat told me, “There’s only one logical conclusion: Gupta was made a scapegoat to help Government of India manage the fallout of the Adani bribery scandal in the U.S.”
Comments