Also Read - Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case, Highlights Rehabilitation Prospects

Judicial Direction for a Sworn Statement

In light of the contradictions, Judge Garaufis directed Joseph Nocella Jr to submit a sworn statement clarifying his precise role in the decision‑making process. The statement must address whether Nocella agrees with every ground for dismissal set out in McCotter’s July 4 letter, disclose whether any additional grounds for dismissal exist, and provide sufficient factual support for any such grounds. The sworn statement is required to be filed by July 17, 2026.

The judge also criticised both parties for presenting information in a piecemeal fashion, noting that each successive disclosure had generated further questions about the propriety and transparency of the dismissal process.

Also Read - Supreme Court Full Court Resolves to Hear 100 Batch Matters and Introduce Case Management Measures

Adani’s Affidavit in Response to the Court’s Order

Prior to the judge’s direction, Gautam Adani had filed an affidavit on July 15, 2026,0 the court’s July 8 order seeking clarification on whether his pledge to invest $10 billion in the United States was linked to the Department of Justice decision to the affidavit Adani stated that he announced the investment pledge in November 2024, a period preceding the indictment and the Securities and Exchange Commission complaint were unsealed. He asserted that he had no knowledge of any quashing any suggestion of a quid pro quo arrangement. In the affidavit Adani declared that he was unaware of any promise, offer, receipt or acceptance connected to the proposed dismissal of the indictment. He denied any awareness of an agreement to exchange something for the withdrawal of the charges.

Adani further explained that the $10 billion investment pledge had been announced in November 2024, well before the indictment and the SEC complaint were made public. He claimed that he had no knowledge of either proceeding at the time of the announcement. The affidavit noted that his lawyers had later suggested, during settlement discussions, that the investment pledge could be incorporated into a resolution if the Department of Justice or the Securities and Exchange Commission wished to do so. However, Nocella had communicated to the defence that the investment proposal would not be considered while evaluating whether to seek dismissal of the indictment, and that other grounds for resolution were under exploration.

Also Read - Allahabad HC Grants Bail to Man Charged Over Social Media Post Showing PM Apologising to Pakistan

Implications of the Judicial Inquiry

The court’s request for a sworn statement places the Department of Justice’s dismissal motion under heightened scrutiny. By requiring Nocella to testify under oath about his involvement and the basis for the dismissal, the judge seeks to ascertain whether the decision was made in accordance with proper prosecutorial discretion and whether any extraneous considerations influenced the outcome. The proceeding underscores the judiciary’s role in overseeing executive actions that affect substantive rights, particularly in high‑profile cases involving foreign nationals and substantial financial allegations.

The outcome of the sworn statement may affect the court’s ultimate ruling on the dismissal motion. Should the statement reveal inconsistencies or unsupported grounds, the judge could deny the dismissal, allowing the indictment to proceed. Conversely, a satisfactory explanation could lead to the court granting the dismissal, thereby concluding the criminal proceedings at the federal level.

Also Read - Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Former Chief Minister’s Staff in Solar Scam Case