The US District Court's request for further clarification from the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding its motion to dismiss the indictment against Gautam Adani and others is a "fairly routine" procedural requirement, according to prominent US legal expert Benjamin A. Gianforti. In an interview with ANI, Gianforti, a partner in a litigation firm, explained that the court's role in such matters is highly restricted.
Government Moves Under Rule 48(a)
Gianforti noted that the government filed the motion under Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which states the government may dismiss an indictment "with leave of court." He emphasized that the phrase "with leave of court" is critical because it gives the judge a limited role in evaluating the government's rationale. However, this role is strictly circumscribed and does not allow the court to second-guess the prosecutor's decision or substitute its own judgment for that of the DOJ.
"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," Gianforti said.
Judicial Refusal Extremely Rare
According to Gianforti, judicial evaluation is purely intended to ensure the dismissal is for a proper purpose, and instances of a judge refusing the DOJ's request are extremely rare. He noted that even if a judge were to deny the motion, the government could effectively secure a dismissal by simply not prosecuting the case, leading to eventual dismissal.
"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 File Reply by July 13
Gianforti predicted that the DOJ would file a reply by July 13, as ordered by the judge, providing more detailed reasons for dropping the case. He expected the government to include information from extensive communications with defense counsel, including presentations and expert testimony.
"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.
Background of the Case
Earlier, US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis instructed the Justice Department to provide 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 proceed with the case did not provide an adequate explanation for their decision.
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 concluded that they could not sustain the allegations. Additionally, the US Securities and Exchange Commission 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 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. The defense also argued that 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 further noted that there were no investor losses, as all bond and loan obligations have been met or are in good standing.
Legal sources suggest the judicial order may fast-track the resolution, as the court has mandated that the US government submit a formal response by July 13, 2026.
