Adani case: US judge’s order a routine procedural requirement, say legal experts

Washington, June 29 (IANS) A US federal judge’s decision to seek a fuller explanation from the Justice Department before approving its request to dismiss criminal charges against industrialist Gautam Adani is unlikely to prevent the case from being dropped, leading American and Indian legal experts told IANS, adding that prosecutorial discretion ultimately rests with the executive branch.

John C. Coffee, Adolf A. Berle Professor of Law at the prestigious Columbia Law School and one of America’s foremost authorities on securities law and corporate litigation, said Judge Nicholas Garaufis may require prosecutors to justify their decision, but cannot substitute the court’s judgment for that of the executive branch.

“Generally, under our Constitution, prosecutorial discretion is seen as an exclusively executive power, which belongs ultimately to the President, as head of the executive branch,” Coffee told IANS.

“Although the Court may be able to ask for a justification, it cannot reverse the prosecutor’s decision, which belongs under our constitutional allocation of powers, to the executive branch. The court’s decision is unusual and cannot be extended to permit substantive review by the court on the prosecutors’ decision to dismiss,” he noted.

Coffee’s assessment comes days after Judge Garaufis directed the Justice Department to provide detailed reasons and supporting facts for its request to dismiss, with prejudice, the indictment against Adani and seven co-defendants.

In a five-page order, the judge said the government’s brief motion failed to provide sufficient information for the court to exercise its responsibilities under Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The Justice Department had stated only that it had reviewed the case and decided, in its prosecutorial discretion, not to devote further resources to pursuing the criminal charges.

Former US Attorney Barbara McQuade said the judge’s request was uncommon but well within the court’s authority to ensure the integrity of the judicial process.

“I’m not familiar with this case, but it is unusual for a judge to question the reasons for dismissal,” McQuade told IANS.

“Most often, because the government party that brought the case, if they want to dismiss it, typically approves without inquiry.”

She added that judges may seek further explanation to ensure the Justice Department is not misusing its authority.

“However, it is reasonable for a judge to make further inquiry to ensure that the Justice Department is not abusing its power, by, for example, repeatedly filing and dismissing charges against the same individual.”

McQuade noted that while the court cannot compel prosecutors to continue the case, it retains limited procedural authority.

“The judge cannot force trust you to go forward with a case, but they can decide whether the dismissal should be brought with or without prejudice, controlling whether the charges can be brought again.”

Renowned Indian senior advocate and former Solicitor General Harish Salve described the judge’s order as a routine procedural requirement rather than a substantive challenge to the Justice Department’s decision.

“In every court in the world, whenever a case is filed in the court, the case becomes, as they say, property of the court,” Salve told IANS.

“So, when you even tell the court, please dismiss a court, they say, ‘ Why? So, the government will file its reasons… So, it’s a standard thing and nothing to read into it. The rule requires the judge to see the reason and then dismiss the case,” he noted.

Asked whether Judge Garaufis could refuse the government’s request, Salve replied: “It’s a formality. If they refuse to give him reasons, he’ll say, give me reasons. Once they give the reason… he’ll say, okay… It’s not for the judge to second-guess them.”

Salve also dismissed suggestions that the latest order would trigger a prolonged legal battle. “There’s no need for an appeal. There is a very small procedural order. The Adani group has nothing to do with it. This is between the prosecutor and the judge,” he said.

Paul Rosenzweig, a former federal prosecutor and national security lawyer, agreed that the Justice Department is ultimately likely to prevail, although he characterised Judge Garaufis’ order as more significant than an ordinary procedural step.

“Well, in the end, all the judges that have faced this question have decided that they really don’t have the discretion to refuse the department’s request to dismiss the case,” Rosenzweig told IANS.

“The prosecutorial authority in America is vested in the executive branch, vested in the Department of Justice, and you can’t force the Department of Justice to prosecute a case that doesn’t want to prosecute. So, in the long run, the case will be dismissed, I think,” said Rosenzweig.

Rosenzweig said the proceedings could conclude within weeks if the court accepts the Justice Department’s explanation, but may take longer if Judge Garaufis appoints an independent lawyer to examine the government’s reasons before ruling.

Judge Garaufis has directed the Justice Department to submit its detailed explanation no later than July 13.

The indictment, returned by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of New York in October 2024 and unsealed the following month, accused the senior Adani Group officials and six others of participating in an alleged scheme involving bribery, securities fraud and obstruction of justice in connection with solar energy projects in India. All defendants have denied wrongdoing.

Last month, the US Department of Justice permanently dropped all criminal charges against the Adani Group Chairman Gautam Adani and his nephew, Sagar Adani, in an alleged securities and wire fraud case.

“The Department of Justice has reviewed this case and has decided, in its prosecutorial discretion, not to devote further resources to these criminal charges against individual defendants,” the Justice Department said.

The court then ordered that the indictment against Adani and others “be dismissed with prejudice”.

–IANS

lkj/na/dpb