A US federal judge has declined to immediately dismiss the criminal indictment against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani and other accused, directing the US Department of Justice (DoJ) to provide a detailed explanation for its decision to abandon the high-profile prosecution.
In an order issued on Friday, US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis of Eastern District of New York said the Justice Department’s request to withdraw the case lacked sufficient reasoning, preventing the court from properly exercising its judicial discretion.
“The government’s terse, bland and conclusory statement does not provide an adequate basis for the court to approve the dismissal,” the judge observed, directing federal prosecutors to submit a fuller justification by July 13.
According to The Washington Post, the judge directed prosecutors to explain in detail why dismissal of the case would serve the public interest and provide sufficient factual and legal grounds for the court to approve the request.
Legal experts told US media that federal courts generally have only limited authority to compel prosecutors to continue a case they no longer wish to pursue. However, the indictment will remain in force until Judge Garaufis formally rules on the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss.
The ruling means the criminal charges will remain pending despite the Justice Department’s filing last month stating that it no longer intended to pursue the prosecution.
The indictment, filed in 2024, accused Adani and other defendants of securities and wire fraud in connection with an alleged scheme to bribe Indian officials to secure approvals for a major solar energy project, while misleading US investors about the company’s anti-corruption practices. The Adani Group has consistently denied the allegations.
Adani’s legal team had earlier urged the court to formally dismiss the indictment, arguing that US prosecutors had recognised the legal and factual weaknesses in the case after reviewing extensive submissions from the defence. According to court filings, the defence also contended that the alleged conduct fell outside the reach of US criminal law.
