Chris Man, a US lawyer, is clear on this: the judge’s insistence on having all the details before he signs off on the US Department of Justice’s move to quash the criminal charges against Adani isn’t trouble for the side trying to get them thrown out. “It’s procedural,” he says. “The case will be done in no time.”
Limited judicial discretion under Rule 48(a)
To put an end to an indictment, prosecutors have to get the court’s okay, as per Rule 48(a). Man points out that while a judge can put some questions to you or want a bit more in writing, it’s just part of the routine.
Once the executive branch has made up its mind to walk away from a prosecution, a judge doesn’t have much room to manoeuvre. In fact, you won’t find many, if any, modern examples of a court making the Justice Department stick with a case they are set on dropping.
Running a criminal prosecution is, by and large, an executive matter. And as legal types will tell you, the courts have always been very deferential to how the other side handles both the charging and the un-charging of a defendant.
What the court asked and why
Nicholas Garaufis, the US District Judge in Brooklyn, wanted the Justice Department to put some flesh on the bones of its reasoning for nixing the Adani indictment. The way he saw it, what came out of the May 18th presser didn’t quite make the case.
According to Man, the order is the court doing its job to make sure the record is in order and the request is in line with the rule. It doesn’t mean the dismissal is in jeopardy; you just have to put in the work to show your hand.
The department had only put forward a short argument for it. So the judge has put a July 13th deadline on them to come back with something more substantial.
Comparable case: Eric Adams indictment dismissal
You can look at the corruption case with NYC Mayor Eric Adams for a point of reference, says Man. The government there wanted out, the judge put them through their paces with hearings and demanded his due, and in the end, he let the motion stand.
That case was a good reminder of where the line is drawn: a judge can be a watchdog to make sure there’s no abuse, but he can’t simply overrule the prosecution when it wants to be done with a file.
Why Adani’s side says the case should end
Adani’s lawyers were blunt in a letter to the court on June 24, 2026: the kind of dealings we’re talking about here don’t fall under the purview of US law.
According to the letter, the transactions in question were with issuers and lenders not based in the U.S. The paperwork for them was put together and given the green light on foreign soil, and English law is what’s in force for both of the bond offerings.
With that in mind, and pointing to the Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison vs. National, they make the case that this is beyond the reach of US securities law. That’s despite the indictment, which lays out charges of securities and wire fraud in connection with a supposed pay-to-play arrangement.
As for the bribery claims, the defence has some expert testimony from an ex-regulator to back it up. His take is that the so-called payments are nothing more than the kind of open and above-board price cuts Adani Green would make to get state power companies to come on board with solar deals. In the words of counsel, they’re just business as usual, not hush money.
Adani’s team says the Justice Department has done its due diligence before moving forward. From February to April 2026 alone, they have put on the table some 500 pages of material: the facts, the law, and their side of the story. A 118-page letter was part of that, with input from a Harvard Law professor and a former SEC Commissioner.
They’ve also made it known to the court that no one has been out of pocket. The letter will show you there are no losses tied to any of the four deals. The 2021 bonds have run their course with all interest covered; the 2024 ones are in good standing; the 2021 loan is paid off; and the 2023 one is not in default.
When to expect a ruling
Man figures the Justice Department will have its side of the story in writing by the July 13th mark. He doesn’t see this as a matter of months; a dismissal could be in the offing in a few weeks’ time, and the judge doesn’t even need to hold a hearing to do it.
What the court has to do is make sure the prosecutors are being straight and that the file justifies a dismissal. It’s a standard check, in line with federal rules and the way things are done.
If the DOJ’s next move puts the judge’s mind at ease, the court can put it to rest.
For now, here is what to keep an eye on:
– The DOJ’s full filing, due before the 13th
– The court going over the new record
– An order to dismiss, possibly in short order
– A ruling, hearing or no
The bottom line
This is a case of judicial oversight pitted against executive call, and for those in the know, that’s where the action is. The judge is putting the government’s logic to the test, but he’s not redefining what a prosecutor can do.
Should the court go along with the Justice Department, as Man thinks it will, it will be another example of Rule 48(a) in practice: a hard look at the numbers, and then a nod to the dismissal once the reasoning is laid out.
