WASHINGTON — A U.S. federal judge’s request for a more detailed explanation from the Justice Department before approving the dismissal of criminal charges against Gautam Adani and seven co-defendants is unlikely to prevent the case from being dropped, legal experts said.
The experts said federal prosecutors retain broad discretion over whether to pursue criminal charges, although courts may require the government to explain its decision before authorizing a dismissal.
Judge Nicholas Garaufis recently directed the Justice Department to provide detailed reasons and supporting facts for its request to dismiss the indictment with prejudice. In a five-page order, the judge said the government’s brief motion did not provide enough information for the court to fulfill its responsibilities under Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The Justice Department said it had reviewed the case and decided not to devote additional resources to prosecuting the defendants.
John C. Coffee, the Adolf A. Berle Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, said the judge may ask 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.
Former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade said it is unusual for a judge to question the government’s reasons for seeking dismissal, but the court may conduct a limited inquiry to protect 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 said a judge may seek more information to ensure prosecutors are not misusing their 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 said the court cannot force the Justice Department to continue prosecuting the case but may determine whether charges are dismissed with or without prejudice.
“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.”
Indian senior advocate and former Solicitor General Harish Salve described the order as a standard procedural requirement rather than a substantive challenge to the government’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 the judge could reject the request, Salve said: “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 said the order was a procedural matter between the judge and prosecutors and was unlikely to lead to 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, also said the Justice Department would likely prevail, although he viewed the order as more significant than a routine 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 matter could be resolved within weeks if the judge accepts the government’s explanation. Proceedings could take longer if the court appoints an independent attorney to review the Justice Department’s reasoning.
Garaufis ordered the department to submit its explanation by July 13.
The indictment was returned by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of New York in October 2024 and unsealed the following month. It accused senior Adani Group officials and six others of participating in an alleged bribery, securities fraud and obstruction scheme connected to solar energy projects in India.
All defendants have denied wrongdoing. (Source: IANS)
