Adani case: US court's order a routine exercise, not a setback: Pahwa

Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa says the US judge's order for more info from the DOJ in the Adani case is a routine procedural step, not a setback. He believes the court is following normal procedure before ruling on the motion to dismiss the indictment.

Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa on Monday said the recent order of US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis seeking additional information from the US Department of Justice (DOJ) in the Adani case is a routine procedural exercise and should not be seen as a setback to the government's request to dismiss the indictment.

Speaking to ANI, Pahwa said the court has merely sought additional material before passing a final order and has listed the matter for July 13 after granting a short adjournment. "This is a routine issue. The judge, while considering the application, has asked for some additional information and fixed the matter after a short interval. That is a completely normal judicial procedure," he said.

Pahwa said the judge has not declined the DOJ's request and has instead followed the standard legal process by seeking further clarification. "The court has not rejected the application for cancellation of the indictment. It has only issued a notice, sought additional information and fixed the matter for July 13. Once the reply is filed, the court will consider it and pass an appropriate order," he said.

Explaining the Legal Position

Explaining the legal position, Pahwa referred to Rule 48(a) of the US Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and said the discretion to seek dismissal of an indictment primarily lies with the government. "The government has the authority to seek dismissal of an indictment, subject to obtaining the leave of the court. That is exactly what has been done in this case," he said.

While acknowledging that the court technically has the power to reject such a request, Pahwa said that would happen only in exceptional circumstances. "The court can reject the application if it finds it to be completely baseless, collusive or against a significant public interest. But under normal circumstances, the chances of that happening are very, very bleak. The court's jurisdiction in such matters is extremely limited," he said.

Pahwa also expressed the view that the proceedings are unlikely to be prolonged. "If there was going to be any substantial delay, the court would have granted a much longer adjournment. Instead, it has fixed the matter within two weeks. Once the Department of Justice files its response, the court can proceed to pass an order. I do not think the process will take too long," he said.

On whether the Adani Group should explore appellate remedies at this stage, Pahwa said it would be appropriate to first await the court's decision. "In my understanding, the parties should wait for the court's order. After that, if required, they can consider the legal remedies available to them," he said.

Background of the Case

Earlier, US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis, instructed the Justice Department to furnish a more comprehensive clarification regarding its petition to formally drop the indictment. Judge Garaufis noted that the federal prosecutors' May 18 notification indicating they would no longer move forward with the case did not provide an adequate explanation for their decision to withdraw the matter.

The US DOJ had decided to permanently drop all criminal charges against Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani in an alleged securities and wire fraud case pending in New York. Prosecutors had concluded that they could not sustain the allegations.

Adani Group's Defence

The Adani Group has maintained that the case against it suffered from fatal flaws. In a letter to the Court dated June 24, 2026, the company highlighted that the transactions were conducted by non-US issuers and lenders, governed by English law, and fell outside the scope of US securities law under the Supreme Court's ruling in Morrison v. National Australia Bank.

Furthermore, the defence highlighted that the bribery allegations lacked substance, supported by expert testimony from a former senior Indian regulatory official, which indicated that the alleged payments were transparent price reductions rather than illegal inducements. Adani also noted that there were no investor losses, as all bond and loan obligations have been met or are in good standing. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)