Adani’s legal team has argued that the case had major weaknesses, including questions over jurisdiction, evidence and alleged investor losses.

A US federal judge’s decision to seek a fuller explanation from prosecutors before approving the dismissal of criminal charges against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani is a procedural requirement and does not signal that the case is likely to proceed, according to a senior US lawyer familiar with federal criminal practice.

“The judge’s order is procedural,” lawyer Chris Man said.

Under Rule 48(a), the Department of Justice must obtain leave of court to dismiss an indictment, and judges can ask questions or seek additional briefing before ruling. “That, by itself, is not unusual,” he said.

The lawyer added that there is little precedent for a federal court compelling prosecutors to continue pursuing a criminal case once the Justice Department has decided it should be dismissed.

Judges “have little discretion,” he said. “There is effectively no modern precedent for a judge forcing the Department of Justice to prosecute a case that the executive branch has determined should be abandoned,” he said.

The conduct of criminal prosecutions is constitutionally an executive function, and courts have historically accorded substantial deference to prosecutorial charging and dismissal decisions.

Court seeks detailed explanation from DoJ

The comments came after the judge overseeing the Adani case directed the Justice Department to provide a more detailed explanation for its request to dismiss the indictment.

Brooklyn-based US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis had stated that federal prosecutors’ May 18 announcement that they would no longer pursue the case, which charged Adani with securities fraud and wire fraud stemming from an alleged bribery scheme, did not sufficiently explain their decision.

Man said the judge’s request should not be interpreted as a signal that dismissal is in jeopardy.

In 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 furnish a detailed explanation.

“DoJ is likely to do that prior that deadline, and in my opinion, that case is likely to be dismissed within weeks and not months. The judge can do that even without a hearing,” he said.

The court is building a record to satisfy itself that the request is being made in good faith and is consistent with Rule 48(a). Seeking additional information is part of that process.

Judge Garaufis’s recent order is a normal part of the Court’s discharging of its obligations under the federal criminal rules to consider a prosecutor’s motion to dismiss an indictment.

Adani legal team cites weaknesses in case

Adani’s had in their recent letter to the court the numerous fatal weaknesses in the government’s case. Those weaknesses were addressed in several presentations by counsel to the government that led to the DoJ’s request for 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 dismissal of the indictment, prompting the presiding judge to seek additional explanations and hold hearings before ultimately granting the government’s motion. The court did not compel prosecutors to continue with the case despite examining the reasons for dismissal in considerable detail.

Legal experts say the Adams case underscored that while judges may scrutinise the government’s rationale to guard against abuse, the judiciary’s authority to override the executive’s decision to abandon a prosecution remains extremely limited.

Defence argues case outside US law scope

According to Adani’s letter of June 24, 2026, to the Court, the case was beyond the reach of US law. The transactions were conducted solely by non-US-based issuers and lenders. All offering documents were drafted, reviewed, and approved outside the United States, and both bond offerings were governed by English law- placing the case outside the scope of US securities law under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Morrison vs. National.

The bribery allegations could not be proven: Expert evidence from a former senior Indian regulatory official demonstrated that the allegedly illegal payments coincided with documented, lawful, and transparent price reductions that Adani Green offered to Indian state power companies to incentivise them to sign solar energy contracts- ordinary commercial concessions, not bribes.

DoJ review cited as basis for dismissal

The DOJ’s decision followed a thorough and exhaustive review. Adani’s had submitted to the DOJ nearly 500 pages of facts, law, expert testimony, and arguments between February and April 2026, including a 118-page letter accompanied by expert reports from a securities law professor at Harvard Law School, a former SEC Commissioner, among others.

They also pointed out that no investor had lost any money. The indictment does not allege any investor losses arising from any of the four transactions. The 2021 bond offering has matured with all interest paid; the 2024 bonds have missed no payments; the 2021 loan has been repaid in full; and the 2023 loan is not in default.

Published on June 29, 2026