US court's Adani case query 'fairly routine': Legal expert explains

A US legal expert clarifies that a court's request for more details from the DOJ regarding its motion to drop an indictment against Adani is a "fairly routine" step. The court's role is highly restricted and not meant to second-guess prosecutors.

The US District Court's order seeking further clarification from the US Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding its motion to dismiss the indictment against Adani and others is a "fairly routine" procedural requirement where the court holds a highly restricted role, according to a prominent US legal expert.

Court's role 'truly a limited one'

In an interview with ANI, Benjamin A. Gianforti, a US-based lawyer and Partner in the firm's Litigation & Dispute Resolution Group, explained that the government has moved to drop the case under Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. He noted that the rule stipulates the government may, "with leave of court," dismiss an indictment. Gianforti highlighted that this specific phrasing is vital, as it contemplates that the court has at least some limited role in evaluating the government's underlying rationale for dropping the case. However, he clarified that this function is strictly circumscribed and is not an opportunity for the court to second-guess the prosecutor's decision or substitute its own wisdom for that of the Department of Justice.

"As you know, the government has filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against Adani and others. It's doing that under a rule of federal criminal procedure 48A. The rule doesn't say a whole lot, but what it does say is that the government may, with the leave of court, dismiss an indictment. That language "with the leave of court" is really important here because it contemplates that the court here, Judge Garaufis in the Eastern District of New York, has at least some limited role in assessing the government's rationale for dismissing the case. What's important to note is that that role is truly a limited one. This is not an opportunity for the judge to second-guess the prosecutor's decision to not pursue this case. It's not about the court substituting its own wisdom for the wisdom of the Department of Justice. It's really just making sure that this dismissal is happening for a proper purpose," he said.

According to the legal expert, the judicial evaluation is purely intended to ensure that the dismissal is being executed for a proper purpose. He noted that instances of a judge refusing the DOJ's request to drop the case are extremly rare.

"In practice, that essentially never happens because, again, the judge is really just trying to make sure that there's no funny business going on here. It's extremely rare for a judge to refuse to dismiss a case under rule 48. As a practical matter, even if a judge did refuse to dismiss a case, the government could essentially get a dismissal anyway by just not prosecuting the case, not bringing it to trial, not doing the things that it needed to do, and then the case would just get dismissed later in time. So as a practical matter, even if the judge said, "Hey, you haven't told me enough information for me to make this decision appropriately, and so I'm denying your motion," even that would not form much of a roadblock for the Department of Justice if they decided to walk away from this case," he said.

DOJ expected to provide details by July 13

Ben Gianforti said that the US DoJ is expected to to file a reply to Judge by July 13 giving details of the reason for dropping the case.

"I would expect is by July 13th, which is the deadline that the judge gave them, they will put together some kind of letter to the judge that will explain in more detail the reasons why they've decided to drop this prosecution. What I would expect is that a lot of it will be similar to what the defense already submitted to the court on June 24th. I don't know all the details here, obviously, because that's between the defendants' lawyers and the government. But from what I'm seeing in the public record, it looks as though there's been extensive communication between the government and defense counsel, where there have been multiple presentations and expert testimony provided. As a former prosecutor, I've seen this happen. Defense lawyers come into the Department of Justice all the time and they say, "Hey, you should drop this case against my client, and here are all the reasons why." Sometimes that happens, sometimes they're successful. So what I would expect is the government to, at a minimum, point to some of that information that was given to them by defense counsel, in addition to their own reasoning, and explain to the judge in certainly more detail than they provided, which is literally one sentence, exactly why they're moving to dismiss the case at this time," he said.

Judge seeks comprehensive clarification

Earlier, US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis, who 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.

Background of the case and defense arguments

Earlier, 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. In another development, the US Securities and Exchange Commission had also settled civil allegations relating to disclosures made to investors in connection with solar energy projects in India.

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.

Legal sources familiar with the matter suggest that the judicial order may actually fast-track the resolution, as the court has mandated that the US government submit a formal response by July 13, 2026. (ANI)

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