NY Judge’s Query in Adani Dismissal: 0 Modern Precedents of Forced Prosecution

For legal practitioners, the Adani case underscores the constitutional limits on judicial review of prosecutorial decisions. The federal judge’s query, while seemingly adversarial, is a standard exercise of the court’s gatekeeping function under Rule 48(a)—a rule that has never in modern memory been used to force a prosecution. This episode serves as a timely reminder of the deference afforded to the executive branch in criminal charging decisions.

The request by US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis for additional detail from prosecutors before approving the dismissal of charges against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani is a procedural formality under Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, not an indication that the dismissal is in doubt. On May 18, 2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it would no longer pursue a criminal case that charged Adani and others with securities fraud and wire fraud stemming from an alleged bribery scheme. The DOJ submitted a brief motion to dismiss the indictment, which Judge Garaufis found insufficiently explained. He set a July 13, 2026 deadline for the government to provide a fuller justification. Senior US lawyer Chris Man, commenting on the development, emphasized that such a request is routine and that there is 'effectively no modern precedent for a judge forcing the Department of Justice to prosecute a case that the executive branch has determined should be abandoned.'

“

For Adani and his conglomerate, the Adani Group, the judge's order changes little.

The legal framework governing the dismissal of federal indictments is rooted in Rule 48(a), which requires the government to obtain 'leave of court' before dropping charges. This rule gives the court a gatekeeping role, allowing a judge to ask questions or seek additional briefing before ruling. However, as Man and other legal experts point out, the rule has never been interpreted to give courts the power to compel prosecution. The constitutional separation of powers places the charging and dismissal of cases squarely within the executive function, and federal courts have historically shown substantial deference to prosecutorial discretion. In practice, a judge's denial of a government dismissal motion is exceedingly rare, and the few older cases where it occurred are considered anomalies rather than binding precedent.