A federal judge in New York has directed the U.S. Justice Department to provide a detailed explanation for its decision to drop criminal charges against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani. The case, brought by the Brooklyn U.S. Attorney’s Office, accused Adani of securities fraud and wire fraud related to an alleged bribery scheme.

U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis, presiding in Brooklyn, declined to immediately grant Adani’s lawyers’ request to dismiss the charges. In a ruling issued June 26, Garaufis criticized the Justice Department’s announcement on May 18, which stated it would no longer pursue the case, describing the explanation as insufficient. “The Government’s terse, bland and conclusory statement affords the court neither a sufficient basis to reach any conclusion, nor the opportunity to conduct any analysis of the Government’s request for dismissal,” the judge wrote.

Garaufis has set a deadline of July 13 for the Justice Department to submit additional information justifying its decision to drop the charges. The court’s request underscores the judiciary’s role in reviewing prosecutorial discretion, particularly in complex cases involving high-profile defendants.

The case against Adani was initiated in 2024 during the final months of the administration of Democratic President Joe Biden. The allegations centered on an alleged bribery scheme tied to securities fraud and wire fraud charges. Throughout the proceedings, Adani Group, the conglomerate led by Gautam Adani, has firmly denied any wrongdoing.

The Brooklyn U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to comment on the judge’s order or the case’s current status. The Justice Department is now expected to provide further details on its rationale for dismissing the charges, a move that could shed light on the underlying factors influencing the prosecution’s decision.

This development adds a new chapter to a case that has drawn significant attention due to the prominence of the defendant and the serious nature of the allegations. Observers will be watching closely to see how the Justice Department responds and whether the judge’s demand for greater transparency leads to a resolution or further judicial proceedings.