The Karnataka High Court has issued a notice to the state government over its controversial decision to withdraw 43 criminal cases involving former ministers, MLAS, and influential persons. This notice was delivered on February 27, 2025, after the court reviewed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the legality of the government's order to drop these cases.
The Division Bench, composed of Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice M.I. Arun, questioned the authority of the government on this matter, pointing to potential violations under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). This section expressly states the power to withdraw prosecution rests solely with public prosecutors and not with the state cabinet.
The PIL was filed by Bengaluru-based advocate Girish Bhardwaj, who argued vehemently against the cabinet’s authority. The petition emphasized how both the police and prosecution departments had opposed the withdrawal, asserting these cases were not suitable for dismissal. Yet, the cabinet proceeded regardless of these recommendations, which raises serious legal and moral concerns.
Among the 43 cases are serious offenses, including those filed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Prevention of Destruction of Public Property Act, and the Religious Institution (Prevention of Misuse) Act. Notably, some cases are directly linked to the 2022 Hubballi riots. During this event, which stemmed from a controversial social media post, police personnel were attacked by mobs.
The PIL referenced previous rulings by the High Court, which emphasized the necessity for explicit approval from High Courts before any withdrawal of criminal charges against MPs and MLAS. A previous Supreme Court judgment provides the backdrop for this requirement. The High Court highlighted the importance of following due legislative processes and questioned whether the state government had overstepped its legal boundaries.
Observing what the court termed “a strong prima facie case” against the government’s decision, the judges directed the state to provide its response by March 17, 2025. The court also suggested to the petitioner, Bhardwaj, to present the ruling to the lower courts presiding over the cases, indicating there would be no allowance for the withdrawal of charges during the judicial review process.
Legal experts are closely monitoring the situation. Advocacy for the proper administration of justice is at the heart of the challenges posed by the PIL. The outcome not only questions the state’s actions but also serves as a test case for maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system against potential executive overreach.
While this legal tussle develops, the broader public discourse centers around accountability for crimes committed by influential figures, raising significant concerns about the protection of democratic institutions and public trust in the justice system.
Girish Bhardwaj, the advocate behind the PIL, stated, "Only public prosecutors have the legal power to withdraw cases, not the state cabinet," reinforcing the core argument of the petition. The High Court’s engagement with this issue demonstrates the judiciary's role as a check on executive power.
The outcome of this case will likely influence how future allegations against public figures are handled, particularly as they relate to contentious social issues and public safety. It remains to be seen how the state will respond and what this will mean for those currently embroiled in the criminal justice proceedings.
The public, meanwhile, continues to watch closely as these developments could set precedents affecting not only those accused but the entire justice framework within the state.