LIC calls the Washington Post report on Adani investments baseless and misleading

The Washington Post, in its report published on October 24, had alleged that the Indian government directed nearly $3.9 billion (around ₹33,000 crore) from LIC into companies owned by billionaire Gautam Adani at a time when his businesses were facing financial and legal challenges. The report also claimed that the government has internal plan outlining LIC’s roadmap to support the Adani Group—an assertion the insurer has categorically rejected.

Washington Post reported that, “Debt was piling up quickly this spring for Gautam Adani — owner of a vast empire of Indian coal mines, airports, seaports and green energy ventures — and the bills were coming due” and they investigated several  “Internal documents detail how Indian officials oversaw a plan to steer billions in investments to Gautam Adani’s businesses from the state life insurance agency.”

 In its official statement, LIC said its investment decisions are taken “independently as per Board-approved policies after detailed due diligence,” emphasising that neither the Department of Financial Services nor any other government body has any role in its investment process.

“LIC has ensured highest standards of due diligence and all its investment decisions have been undertaken in compliance with extant policies, provisions in the Acts and regulatory guidelines, in the best interest of all its stakeholders,” the insurer said.

LIC also said that the “purported statements” in the Washington Post article appear to be “intended to prejudice the well-established decision-making process of LIC” and tarnish both its reputation and India’s financial sector foundations.

This is not the first time LIC’s investments in the Adani Group have drawn scrutiny. Following the Hindenburg Research report in early 2023 that accused the conglomerate of stock manipulation, LIC had disclosed that its total equity exposure to Adani Group companies stood at around ₹36,000 crore, representing less than 1 percent of its total assets under management. The insurer had since clarified that its exposure was within regulatory limits and based on sound investment rationale.