India's economic transformation over the past decade has been marked by ambitious infrastructure projects, increased global investment and the emergence of powerful corporate conglomerates. Alongside this growth, however, concerns about crony capitalism, the concentration of economic power and the influence of political connections on business opportunities have become increasingly prominent.
Few developments illustrate these concerns more clearly than the parallel rise of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and billionaire industrialist Gautam Adani.
The relationship between the two has remained a subject of political controversy, investigative journalism and parliamentary debate. Critics argue that the Adani Group's transformation from a commodity trading business into one of India's largest infrastructure conglomerates cannot be understood without examining its proximity to political power. The government and the Adani Group, however, have rejected allegations of preferential treatment, maintaining that the group's expansion reflects its business capabilities and the growing infrastructure requirements of the country.
The controversy returned to the spotlight in October 2026 with the release of a 36-minute documentary titled The Friendship Files: How Modi and Adani Stole India. The documentary examined the relationship between the two and alleged that the Adani Group had benefited from favourable government decisions. Adani Enterprises subsequently filed a ₹50-crore defamation suit. The Calcutta High Court then passed an interim order restraining the documentary's circulation until January 31, 2027, or further orders.
The legal proceedings have added another dimension to the debate: how should the protection of corporate reputation be balanced against the public's right to scrutinise powerful business and political interests? Examining the history of the relationship and the decisions accompanying the Adani Group's expansion is important to understanding these questions.
The origins of the Modi-Adani relationship can be traced to Gujarat in the early 2000s, when Narendra Modi was chief minister. Following the 2002 Gujarat riots, Modi's leadership faced considerable national and international criticism. The state's investment climate also came under scrutiny, with sections of the corporate community expressing concerns about its political environment.
During this period, Gautam Adani emerged as an important supporter of Modi's economic vision. Adani helped defend Modi against criticism from sections of the business community and played a significant role in establishing the Vibrant Gujarat investment summit in 2003. The initiative subsequently became an important instrument for projecting Gujarat as an attractive investment destination.
The relationship was mutually beneficial. Modi gained influential corporate support in establishing his business-friendly credentials, while Adani operated in an administration committed to large-scale infrastructure development. However, questions concerning the allocation of public resources also became part of the discussion.
A 2014 Business Standard investigation examined land allotted to the Adani Group for its Mundra port and special economic zone projects. According to the report, certain parcels were allotted at rates ranging from Re 1 to ₹32 per square metre. The investigation compared these rates with those paid by other industrial companies, including Tata Motors and Ford India. Such reports raise questions about the terms on which public land is transferred to private corporations and the safeguards required to ensure transparency and accountability.
The 2014 general election marked a significant turning point in the relationship. Modi's victory transformed him from a powerful state leader into the Prime Minister of India, giving his long-standing association with Adani a national dimension. One image from this transition attracted considerable attention: Modi travelled to Delhi aboard an aircraft bearing the Adani Group's branding after winning the election.
More significantly, the Adani Group's market valuation increased substantially in the following years. According to figures cited in a 2023 Guardian investigation, its market value rose from approximately $8 billion in 2013 to around $288 billion at its peak in September 2022. This expansion coincided with the government's infrastructure programme and the group's entry into or expansion across ports, airports, coal, power generation and renewable energy.
The company invested heavily in sectors experiencing considerable demand. However, the scale and speed of its growth have raised questions about the factors behind its expansion. Was its success primarily the result of entrepreneurship, investment and market opportunities, or did its proximity to political power provide additional advantages? These questions can be examined through contracts, regulatory decisions, bidding procedures and the competitive environment in which the group operates.
One of the most discussed examples of the Adani Group's expansion is its entry into India's airport sector. In 2019, the government initiated the privatisation of six Airports Authority of India-operated airports: Ahmedabad, Lucknow, Mangaluru, Jaipur, Guwahati and Thiruvananthapuram. Despite having limited experience in operating commercial airports, the Adani Group emerged as the successful bidder for all six. The bidding process attracted attention because the Department of Economic Affairs and NITI Aayog had reportedly raised concerns about the proposed framework.
According to documents reported by The Indian Express in January 2021, the Department of Economic Affairs had recommended restricting a single bidder to a maximum of two airports to prevent excessive concentration and reduce operational risks. The government, however, decided against imposing such a restriction and removed the requirement for prior experience in airport operations.
The Adani Group subsequently secured all six concessions for 50 years. The government defended the process, stating that competitive electronic tendering had been followed and that Adani had submitted the highest financial bids.
Winning competitive tenders does not, by itself, establish wrongdoing. Nevertheless, the policy framework deserves scrutiny. Why were the institutional concerns not translated into safeguards? Was allowing one corporate group to acquire all six airports the most appropriate way to encourage competition? The group's subsequent acquisition of Mumbai International Airport further strengthened its position in the aviation sector.
Airports were only one component of the group's expansion. The Adani Group also increased its presence in coal mining, thermal power, renewable energy, electricity transmission, gas distribution and logistics. These are strategically important sectors that influence India's energy security, transportation and industrial development. The government's infrastructure programme created substantial opportunities for companies capable of making large, long-term investments, and Adani was among those positioned to benefit.
However, the concentration of critical infrastructure in a relatively small number of corporate groups raises questions about competition, market access and public accountability. The Supreme Court's 2014 cancellation of 204 coal block allocations, followed by the introduction of a new allocation framework, significantly changed India's coal sector. The Adani Group subsequently expanded its presence in coal mining, imports and power generation.
The central issue is not whether private companies should participate in these industries. Private investment is important for expanding India's energy and infrastructure capacities. The concern is whether access to natural resources, environmental clearances and infrastructure contracts is governed by transparent procedures and consistently applied rules. Economic development requires investment, but it must also provide a level playing field for businesses.
The controversy acquired an international financial dimension in January 2023, when US-based short-seller Hindenburg Research published a report accusing the Adani Group of stock manipulation, accounting irregularities and misuse of offshore entities. The group rejected the allegations, describing the report as a malicious attack.
In August 2023, The Guardian, citing documents obtained by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), reported that offshore investment structures allegedly associated with two close associates of Vinod Adani, Gautam Adani's elder brother, had invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Adani-listed companies.
The investigation also reported that India's Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had raised concerns about potentially Adani-linked investments with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in January 2014. These reports brought questions concerning ownership disclosures, financial transparency and compliance with securities regulations into sharper focus.
The relationship between political leadership and corporate expansion has also attracted attention beyond India's borders. In Bangladesh, Adani Power secured a 25-year agreement in 2017 to supply electricity from its Godda power plant in Jharkhand. Following Sheikh Hasina's departure from power in 2024, the interim government reviewed the agreement amid concerns about electricity prices and contractual terms.
Adani maintained that it had fulfilled its contractual obligations. In Sri Lanka, Adani Green Energy's proposed $1-billion wind power projects in Mannar and Pooneryn also attracted scrutiny over tariffs and approval procedures. Following a change of government, Sri Lanka reviewed the arrangements, and Adani Green Energy announced its withdrawal in February 2025, citing commercially unviable conditions.
These developments raise broader questions about the relationship between India's foreign policy and the overseas commercial interests of Indian corporations. Government diplomacy can play an important role in facilitating international business, but it must serve India's wider economic and strategic interests rather than be perceived as promoting the interests of individual corporate groups.
India needs successful businesses and entrepreneurs willing to invest in ports, airports, electricity, renewable energy and manufacturing. There is nothing inherently inappropriate about a businessman maintaining a close relationship with a political leader. The issue arises when political proximity creates perceptions of preferential access, weakens confidence in regulatory independence or makes questions about public policy and corporate privileges difficult to pursue.
The Modi-Adani controversy is therefore about more than two influential individuals. It raises fundamental questions about India's economic model, institutional independence and democratic accountability. The Adani Group's expansion deserves recognition wherever it reflects genuine entrepreneurship, investment and business performance. At the same time, commercial success cannot place a company beyond public scrutiny. Similarly, infrastructure development cannot become a justification for avoiding questions about transparency, competition and the allocation of public resources.
A country's economic strength cannot be measured merely by the number of billionaires it produces, the size of its stock market or the scale of its infrastructure projects. It must also be assessed by how fairly economic opportunities are distributed, how independently regulatory institutions function and how effectively those exercising political and economic power are held accountable.
India's democracy is not threatened simply because a businessman becomes powerful. The more important concern is whether corporate wealth and political authority become so closely intertwined that scrutiny of their relationship is discouraged or treated as an attack rather than a legitimate democratic responsibility.
Ultimately, the credibility of both government institutions and private enterprise depends on transparency, fair competition and accountability. These principles are essential not only for public confidence but also for the long-term health of India's economy and democracy.
---
Mohd. Ziyaullah Khan is a freelance content writer and editor based in Nagpur. He is also an activist and social entrepreneur, and co-founder of TruthScape, a team of digital activists working against disinformation on social media
Comments