Two weeks. That is how long the US court gave the Justice Department to answer, and Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa thinks the short fuse says plenty. “If there was going to be any substantial delay, the court would have granted a much longer adjournment,” he told ANI on Monday. “Instead, it has fixed the matter within two weeks.”
The order itself is Judge Nicholas Garaufis’s call for additional information on the department’s bid to dismiss the Adani indictment. Pahwa called it a routine procedural step. The matter is listed for July 13.
The detail that matters is what the judge said about the earlier filing. Prosecutors had announced on May 18 that they would no longer move forward, and Garaufis found that notice did not adequately explain the decision. The department had resolved to drop all criminal charges against Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani in the securities and wire fraud case, having concluded that it could not sustain the allegations.
How Rule 48(a) works
Under the hood, the mechanism is Rule 48(a) of the US Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Pahwa explained that the government holds the primary discretion to seek dismissal, but needs the court’s leave. “The government has the authority to seek dismissal of an indictment, subject to obtaining the leave of the court. That is exactly what has been done in this case.”
The judge could in theory say no. Pahwa put the bar high: the court can reject the application if it finds it “completely baseless, collusive or against a significant public interest.” Outside that, he said, “the chances of that happening are very, very bleak. The court’s jurisdiction in such matters is extremely limited.”
Nothing has been refused so far. Pahwa stressed that the court “has only issued a notice, sought additional information and fixed the matter for July 13.” Once the department’s reply is in, the court will consider it and pass an appropriate order. His own estimate: “I do not think the process will take too long.”
The group’s case
The Adani Group says the prosecution was flawed from the start. Its June 24, 2026 letter to the court argued that the transactions were carried out by non-US issuers and lenders and governed by English law. On that footing, it said, they fall outside US securities law under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Morrison v. National Australia Bank.
The bribery claims fare no better, the group argued. It leaned on expert testimony from a former senior Indian regulatory official, who found that the payments at issue were transparent price reductions rather than illegal inducements. The group also pointed out that no investor lost money, because all bond and loan obligations have been met or are in good standing.
Should the group consider appellate remedies if things go the other way? Pahwa advised patience: wait for the order, and “if required” weigh the options then.
