A US federal judge’s decision to seek a full explanation from prosecutors before approving the dismissal of criminal charges against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani is a procedural requirement and does not indicate that the case is likely to proceed, according to a senior US lawyer familiar with federal criminal practice.
“The judge’s order is procedural,” attorney Chris Mann said.
Under Rule 48(a), the Justice Department must seek the court’s permission to dismiss an indictment, and the judge can ask questions or seek additional briefing before issuing a ruling. “That in itself is not unusual,” he said.
The lawyer said there is no precedent for a federal court to force prosecutors to pursue a criminal case when the Justice Department has decided it should be dismissed.
“Judges have little discretion,” he said, adding, “There is effectively no modern precedent for a judge forcing the Justice Department to prosecute a case that the executive branch should have dropped.”
The conduct of criminal prosecutions is constitutionally an executive function, and courts have historically given considerable deference to prosecutors’ charging and dismissing decisions.
The comments came after the judge overseeing the Adani case directed the Justice Department to provide a more detailed explanation for the request to dismiss the indictment.
Brooklyn-based U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garoufis had said federal prosecutors’ May 18 announcement that they would no longer pursue the case, in which Adani was charged with securities fraud and wire fraud stemming from an alleged bribery scheme, did not adequately explain his decision.
Mann said the judge’s request should not be interpreted as a signal that dismissal is in danger.
In the Adani case, the DOJ had submitted a brief argument seeking dismissal of the indictment against Adani and others, he said, adding that the judge has given the DOJ time till July 13 to submit a detailed explanation.
He said, “The DOJ could do that before that deadline, and in my opinion, that case would likely be dismissed within weeks, not months. The judge could even do that without a hearing.”
The court is making a record to satisfy itself that the request is being made in good faith and in accordance with Rule 48(a). Asking for additional information is part of that process.
Judge Garoufis’s recent order is a routine part of the Court’s discharge of its obligations under the federal criminal rules to consider a prosecutor’s motion to dismiss an indictment.
Adani, in his recent letter to the court, had pointed out several fatal weaknesses in the government’s case. Several submissions by government counsel addressed the weaknesses that led the DoJ to request dismissal.
The lawyer pointed to the recent corruption case involving New York City Mayor Eric Adams as an example. In that case, the Justice Department sought to dismiss the indictment, prompting the presiding judge to ask for additional clarifications and hold a hearing before ultimately granting the government’s motion. Despite examining the reasons for the dismissal in great detail, the court did not compel prosecutors to continue the case.
Legal experts say the Adams case highlights that judges can scrutinize the government’s reasoning to protect against abuses, but the judiciary’s authority to overturn executive decisions to drop prosecution is extremely limited.
According to Adani’s letter to the court dated June 24, 2026, the matter was beyond the reach of US law. The transactions were conducted entirely by non-US-based issuers and lenders. All offering documents were prepared, reviewed and approved outside the United States, and both bond offerings were governed by English law – the case was excluded from the scope of US securities law under the Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. National.
Bribery charges could not be proven: Expert testimony from a former senior Indian regulatory official revealed that the allegedly illegal payments coincided with documented, legitimate and transparent price cuts that Adani Green offered to Indian state power companies to encourage them to sign solar power contracts – ordinary commercial concessions, not bribes.
The DOJ’s decision received a thorough and comprehensive review. Adani had submitted nearly 500 pages of facts, law, expert testimony and arguments to the DOJ between February and April 2026, including a 118-page letter that included expert reports from a securities law professor at Harvard Law School, a former SEC commissioner, and others.
He also said that no investor has lost any money. The indictment does not allege investor losses in any of the four transactions. The 2021 bond offering has matured with all interest payments due; There are no missed payments on the 2024 bonds; The 2021 loan has been repaid in full; And the 2023 loan is not in default.