The Karnataka High Court has temporarily halted the state government's order to drop 52 criminal cases, citing that prosecution decisions rest with public prosecutors under the CrPC. The ruling challenges a pattern of politically motivated case withdrawals by successive Congress and BJP administrations.
Bengaluru – In a decisive move on July 2, the Karnataka High Court stayed the Congress‑led Siddaramaiah government’s May 27 order to withdraw 52 criminal cases. The stay was granted after a petition by right‑wing activist Girish Bharadwaj, who argued that the state lacks authority to unilaterally discontinue prosecutions.
Political Background and Precedents
The decision follows a long‑standing practice by both Congress and BJP governments to clear cases involving their perceived support bases. During Siddaramaiah’s first term (2013‑18), the Congress dismissed 176 cases, many linked to the now‑banned Popular Front of India, farmer collectives, Dalit groups and pro‑Kannada organisations. The BJP, in power from 2019‑2023, dropped 385 cases, including those against Hindu Jagarana Vedike activists and other Hindutva‑aligned entities.
Details of the 52 Cases
An analysis by The Indian Express reveals that the 52 cases span a range of offenses:
- Eight cases stem from the February‑March 2022 communal clash in Aland, Kalaburagi, where over 300 Muslims were booked after tensions flared around a Hindu‑shrine ritual at the Ladle Mashak Dargah complex;
- Ten cases relate to the 2016 Bengaluru pro‑Kannada protests triggered by a Supreme Court order on the Cauvery dispute and non‑Kannada banner bans;
- Five Dalit‑related cases involve protests over alleged insults to B.R. Ambedkar;
- Twelve cases concern farmer agitations;
- The remaining cases include Covid‑protocol violations (2020‑21) and other minor offenses.
Judicial Reasoning
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha, relied on its own May 29, 2025 order, which affirmed that under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the discretion to discontinue prosecution lies exclusively with public prosecutors, not the state executive. By invoking this principle, the court labeled the May 27 order as “impinging upon the discretion to be exercised by the prosecution.”
Political and Social Implications
The stay sends a clear signal: future administrations cannot rely on executive orders to shield their constituencies from criminal liability without facing judicial scrutiny. Legal scholars warn that unchecked case‑dropping could exacerbate communal tensions, erode public confidence in the rule of law, and embolden identity‑based politics.
Next Steps
State Home Minister Priyank Kharge indicated that the government will formulate a legal response to the High Court’s stay. Opposition parties and civil‑society groups are already discussing filing a constitutional challenge, arguing that the executive’s overreach threatens democratic checks and balances.
