“This is a routine issue.” That was Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa on Monday, speaking to ANI about the order a US judge issued in the Adani case. He rejected any idea that it counts as a setback for the Justice Department’s attempt to dismiss the indictment.
The order came from US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis. He told the department to give a fuller explanation of its petition to drop the case, saying prosecutors’ May 18 notification that they would not go forward did not say enough about why. The department had decided to drop all criminal charges against Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani in the securities and wire fraud case in New York, after concluding it could not sustain the allegations.
The court then listed the matter for July 13 after a short adjournment.
“The judge, while considering the application, has asked for some additional information and fixed the matter after a short interval,” Pahwa said. “That is a completely normal judicial procedure.” He pointed out that the judge has not turned the request down. “The court has not rejected the application for cancellation of the indictment. It has only issued a notice, sought additional information and fixed the matter for July 13. Once the reply is filed, the court will consider it and pass an appropriate order.”
The rule behind it
Pahwa cited Rule 48(a) of the US Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, under which the discretion to seek dismissal of an indictment mainly sits with the government. “The government has the authority to seek dismissal of an indictment, subject to obtaining the leave of the court,” he said. “That is exactly what has been done in this case.”
He accepted that the court technically has the power to refuse. That would take exceptional circumstances. “The court can reject the application if it finds it to be completely baseless, collusive or against a significant public interest,” he said. “But under normal circumstances, the chances of that happening are very, very bleak. The court’s jurisdiction in such matters is extremely limited.”
Timing
The two-week gap told him something too. “If there was going to be any substantial delay, the court would have granted a much longer adjournment,” Pahwa said. “Instead, it has fixed the matter within two weeks.” Once the department files its response, the court can proceed to pass an order, and he does not expect it to take long.
The Adani Group has said the case had fatal flaws. In a June 24, 2026 letter to the court, it said the transactions involved non-US issuers and lenders, were governed by English law, and fell outside US securities law under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Morrison v. National Australia Bank. It also said the bribery allegations lacked substance, citing expert testimony from a former senior Indian regulatory official that the alleged payments were transparent price reductions. And it noted that no investor lost money, since bond and loan obligations have been met or are in good standing.
Asked whether the group should look at appellate remedies now, Pahwa said it should first wait for the court’s order. “After that, if required, they can consider the legal remedies available to them.”
