New York [US], July 29 (ANI): The US District Court's order seeking further clarification from the US Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding its motion to dismiss the indictment against Gautam and Sagar Adani is part of procedure and the Judge rarely disapproves such a request, says US Lawyer Adam Goldberg.
US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis had earlier instructed the Justice Department to furnish a more comprehensive clarification regarding its petition to formally drop the indictment. Judge Garaufis noted that the federal prosecutors' May 18 notification indicating they would no longer move forward with the case did not provide an adequate explanation for their decision to withdraw the matter.
"It is a relatively routine procedural matter. Under the United States rules of criminal procedure, a judge has leave to approve, but it's very uncommon for a judge not to approve when the Department of Justice decides that they're not going to pursue a case. So the Department of Justice effectively has the authority to decide not to approve a case, and while they have to get a judge's approval for that to happen, it's very uncommon for a judge to reject that approval and ask for more. And it happens in situations where there's corruption or concerns about corruption, a few other rare cases, but by and large, this is a procedural matter," Advocate Adam Goldberg told ANI.
According to Goldberg, Judge Nicholas Garaufis has the authority to approve the US DOJ request but not to overrule the same.
"The judge has the authority to approve, but not the authority to overrule the Department of Justice, which has the authority to decide how it wants to prosecute cases. So in the very uncommon instances where district court judges have found that they are not going to approve, it has to go up through an appellate process. Generally, those have been overturned. District judges do not have the authority to second-guess the Department of Justice in what it wants... in what it wants to do. It needs to decide that, for example, the... the decision to drop the case is in good faith, but beyond that, no. The district court judge does not have significant authority to overrule what the Department of Justice wants to do," Goldberg told ANI.
Goldberg says the US DOJ will reply to the judge and provide the information sought by the court pursuant to which the Judge is likely to approve the request to drop the indictment against Gautam and Sagar Adani.
"What would commonly happen, and by the way, it is common for judges to ask for sufficient information to fulfill their obligations to make sure that they are approving in a manner that meets their... meets their requirements. The Department of Justice will provide more information. They... what tends to happen is they will provide as little information as they can in the first instance, the judge has decided that he wants to see more, so they will provide more information, and my guess is that will then ultimately result in the judge approving. If ultimately the judge decided that he was going to reject the Department of Justice's motion to drop the case and force them to move forward, which is incredibly unlikely because he doesn't really have that authority, that could be appealed. But what the Adani group can do at this point is wait for this to be over. It's very likely to be over very shortly," Goldberg said.
Earlier, the US DOJ had decided to permanently drop all criminal charges against Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani in an alleged securities and wire fraud case pending in New York. Prosecutors had concluded that they could not sustain the allegations. The Adani Group has maintained that the case against it suffered from fatal flaws.
In a letter to the Court dated June 24, 2026, the company highlighted that the transactions were conducted by non-US issuers and lenders, governed by English law, and fell outside the scope of US securities law under the Supreme Court's ruling in Morrison v. National Australia Bank. Furthermore, the defence highlighted that the bribery allegations lacked substance, supported by expert testimony from a former senior Indian regulatory official, which indicated that the alleged payments were transparent price reductions rather than illegal inducements. Adani also noted that there were no investor losses, as all bond and loan obligations have been met or are in good standing. (ANI)
(This article was generated from news agency ANI without modifications to the text.)
