The Cognizant bribery case has once again brought to light the stark contrast between how the U.S. and Indian legal systems handle corruption and white-collar crime. While India is actively investigating and seeking justice for the alleged bribery that took place on its soil, the U.S. legal system has chosen a different path—one that raises fundamental questions about fairness, justice, and sovereignty.
The case involves bribes allegedly paid between 2014 and 2016 by Cognizant officials to Indian government authorities in order to secure environmental and construction clearances for projects in Pune and Chennai. Indian agencies, including the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), Maharashtra’s Anti-Corruption Bureau, and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), have been conducting investigations into these transactions. Srimanikandan’s Role: The Key Accused Who Escaped Prosecution
At the center of this controversy is Srimanikandan Ramamoorthy (Srimanikandan), a former real estate executive for Cognizant India. He is accused of orchestrating and facilitating illegal payments to government officials in exchange for permits and clearances. Srimanikandan’s actions violated Indian anti-corruption laws and showcased how multinational corporations often manipulate local governance structures for their own gain.
However, instead of facing legal proceedings in India, Srimanikandan has secured a non-prosecution agreement with U.S. authorities. Under this agreement, Srimanikandan has agreed to testify against former Cognizant executives in a U.S. trial set for September. This raises serious concerns about how U.S. law treats crime differently from Indian law and why the main accused in India’s investigation has been given immunity in the U.S. despite his crimes being committed in India. The Flawed Approach of U.S. Law: Protecting White-Collar Criminals?
The U.S. legal system often treats financial crimes and corporate misconduct through deals and settlements rather than direct prosecution. This case is a clear example of how the U.S. allows key accused individuals to escape criminal liability if they cooperate with American law enforcement against bigger corporate figures.
● Rather than prosecuting Srimanikandan for his admitted involvement in corruption, the U.S. has chosen to use him as a witness to convict other executives in a separate case.
● By signing a non-prosecution agreement, Srimanikandan has effectively ensured that he will not face direct consequences for his role in the bribery scandal.
● This means that the person who actually facilitated the crime and directly engaged in corrupt activities will walk free, while only select corporate executives may face trial.
This fundamentally contradicts the principles of justice, which dictate that those involved in a crime must be held accountable for their actions. The U.S. approach treats corporate whistleblowers as assets, even when they are directly responsible for the crimes in question. This is not justice—it is selective prosecution. India’s Legal Sovereignty Undermined: Should Indian Law Take a Backseat to U.S. Priorities?
What makes this case even more concerning is the pressure from the U.S. on India to allow Srimanikandan to travel to testify in the American case, despite being required to face justice in India. This raises a serious question about India’s legal sovereignty:
● Should India put on hold all its own investigative and legal proceedings simply because the U.S. wants to prosecute others first?
● Does India need to wait for U.S. authorities to complete their case before taking action against an accused individual involved in an Indian crime?
The fact that Srimanikandan, who is one of the primary accused in India’s investigation, has secured legal protection in the U.S. while still under active investigation in India suggests that India’s justice system is being undermined.
Why is the U.S. Avoiding Proper Legal Channels?
Another alarming aspect of this case is how the U.S. authorities are maneuvering outside standard legal frameworks like the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) to put forward their request.
● If Srimanikandan’s testimony is so crucial for their case, why hasn’t the U.S. formally approached India through MLAT or other established legal frameworks?
● Why is there an expectation that India should simply comply with their demand without due process?
● Is this an attempt to sidestep legal scrutiny and push through their agenda without waiting for India’s legal processes to conclude?
The Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) exists precisely for such scenarios, where cross-border cooperation in criminal cases is required. If the U.S. truly respected India’s legal sovereignty, they would have formally requested access to Srimanikandan through MLAT, instead of applying diplomatic pressure to fast-track his movement to the U.S.
This is not the first time the U.S. has followed this pattern.
● In the David Headley case, India was denied full access to interrogate the mastermind behind the 26/11 attacks, despite the crime being committed in India.
● Now, in the Cognizant case, the U.S. expects India to allow a key accused to leave, even though he is under Indian investigation.
This raises serious concerns about fairness in international law enforcement.
● Why does the U.S. expect other countries to cooperate on its terms, but does not reciprocate the same when it comes to crimes committed on foreign soil?
● Should India allow its legal proceedings to be dictated by American interests instead of following due process?
● If Srimanikandan is required for testimony, why isn’t the U.S. being asked to come through proper legal channels instead of backdoor diplomatic pressure? The Broader Implications: Is Justice Being Served?
The Cognizant bribery case is no longer just about corruption—it is about how justice is applied differently based on international legal priorities. While the U.S. has chosen to cut a deal with the accused rather than prosecute him, India must ensure that its legal system does not bend to these foreign agreements.
● For India’s democracy to function effectively:
Indian authorities must insist that Srimanikandan is tried in India before being allowed to testify abroad.
● The U.S. must be asked to follow proper legal channels like MLAT instead of bypassing India’s legal system.
● Public trust in the legal system must be upheld by ensuring that no accused individual can escape Indian law due to U.S. legal maneuvers.
Conclusion: Justice or Legal Srimanikandan manipulation?
The Cognizant bribery case exposes how U.S. law often protects financial criminals in exchange for cooperation, even if it means bypassing justice. By allowing Srimanikandan to escape prosecution and serve as a U.S. witness instead, the American legal system is ensuring that the key accused in an Indian corruption case avoids accountability.
India must now make a crucial decision: Will it allow its justice system to be dictated by another country, or will it demand that the accused face the consequences of their crimes within Indian courts? More importantly, why is the U.S. not being asked to come through the proper legal framework, rather than relying on diplomatic influence? If India fails to assert its legal authority, the very foundation of its judiciary and democracy could be at risk.
