A United States federal court has sought further clarification from the US Department of Justice (DOJ) after identifying what it described as apparent inconsistencies in the government's request to dismiss criminal bribery charges against Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, and other accused individuals.

The latest order by the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York extends judicial scrutiny over the government's decision and underscores the court's role in reviewing requests to terminate criminal prosecutions.

Court Seeks Sworn Declaration

Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis directed US Attorney Joseph Nocella Jr. to submit a sworn declaration clarifying:

• His role in the decision-making process.
• Whether he agrees with the reasons advanced by the Department of Justice.
• Whether any additional considerations influenced the request to dismiss the prosecution.

The court's order follows concerns that the explanations presented so far may not fully explain the basis for the government's decision.

Background of the Case

The criminal indictment, unsealed in late 2024, alleged that:

• Gautam Adani
• Sagar Adani
• Other individuals

were involved in a scheme to pay more than ₹2,100 crore in alleged bribes to obtain state-linked solar power contracts.

Separately, civil proceedings initiated by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) were reportedly resolved in May 2026, following which the Department of Justice moved to dismiss the corresponding criminal charges with prejudice.

The allegations in the criminal case have not been adjudicated by the court.

Court Questions Basis for Dismissal

Judge Garaufis reportedly observed that the government's application seeking dismissal contained broad and conclusory statements without providing sufficient factual explanation.

Under US criminal procedure, courts may examine whether a prosecutor's request to dismiss charges is supported by legitimate grounds before granting such relief.

The judge therefore requested a more detailed justification from the prosecution.

DOJ Explains Its Position

In submissions filed on 4 July, the Department of Justice argued that:

• The matter involved predominantly foreign conduct.
• Continuing the prosecution would not be an appropriate use of prosecutorial resources.
• The case had limited prospects of proceeding to trial.

According to the filing, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter stated that he alone made the decision to seek dismissal.

The Department also denied media speculation suggesting that investment commitments influenced its decision.

Defence Submissions Raise Additional Questions

The court's scrutiny intensified after defence counsel submitted additional material, including email correspondence.

According to court filings, defence lawyer Robert Giuffra Jr. produced a May 11 email from US Attorney Joseph Nocella Jr., in which settlement-related discussions were referenced.

The court observed that this correspondence appeared inconsistent with the government's earlier assertion that a single official had been solely responsible for the dismissal decision.

The court has not made any findings regarding the substance of those communications.

Investment Pledge Also Examined

The proceedings have also focused on whether Gautam Adani's previously announced investment plans in the United States had any connection with the proposed dismissal.

According to court filings:

• Gautam Adani submitted a sworn affidavit denying any such arrangement.
• He stated that the investment announcement was made before the criminal indictment became public.
• He further asserted that he was unaware of the criminal and civil proceedings at the time of that announcement.

These statements form part of the ongoing court record.

Court Seeks Greater Transparency

Judge Garaufis noted that successive filings by both parties appeared to raise additional issues rather than resolve existing questions.

The court has therefore directed prosecutors to provide:

• A complete explanation of the decision-making process.
• Clarification regarding internal discussions.
• Confirmation under oath of whether any undisclosed considerations influenced the dismissal request.

The sworn declaration is expected to assist the court in determining whether the government's application satisfies the applicable legal standards.

Judicial Oversight at the Centre

The proceedings highlight the balance between:

• Prosecutorial discretion.
• Judicial oversight.
• Transparency in criminal proceedings.

Legal observers note that while prosecutors generally possess broad authority over charging decisions, courts retain a supervisory role when asked to formally dismiss criminal indictments.

Proceedings Continue

The matter remains pending before the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The court has not ruled on whether the criminal charges will ultimately be dismissed.

Its decision is expected after reviewing the additional sworn submissions sought from the prosecution.

Until then, the criminal proceedings remain subject to ongoing judicial consideration.

Shunyatax Global Insight

Shunyatax Global says that cross-border corporate investigations often involve parallel civil and criminal proceedings across multiple jurisdictions. Even when prosecutors seek to withdraw charges, courts may independently examine whether the legal process has been followed transparently and in accordance with procedural safeguards. The case illustrates the importance of judicial oversight, documentary evidence and institutional accountability in high-value international enforcement matters.