In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court on Thursday set aside the state government’s controversial order directing the withdrawal of 43 criminal cases, including several related to the 2022 Hubballi riots. The court declared the directive “non est from inception,” ruling that it lacked legal standing from the outset and directing that legal consequences must follow.
The verdict came on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Girish Bharadwaj, who challenged the government’s October 15, 2024, order. A bench comprising Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind allowed the petition and delivered a sharp rebuke to the government’s actions.
“This is my last day on this dais. I thank all lawyers, court staff, and everyone who supported me. This is my final sitting, final pronouncement, and final order here,” said an emotional Chief Justice Anjaria, who is set to be elevated to the Supreme Court.
Prosecutorial Independence Undermined: Petitioner
Advocate Venkatesh Dalwai, representing the petitioner, argued that the government had overstepped its authority by instructing public prosecutors to file withdrawal applications under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). He asserted that prosecutors are legally obligated to assess the merits of each case independently and not function as conduits for executive directives.
Dalwai cited Supreme Court precedents that reinforce the prosecutorial duty to act independently and in the interest of justice. He also revealed that both the Law Department and the Prosecution and Government Litigation Department had advised against withdrawing the cases—a view that was disregarded by the Home Department.
Serious Charges, Political Overtones
The 43 cases targeted for withdrawal included charges of rioting, attempted murder, assault on police personnel, and destruction of public property. Among them were multiple FIRs linked to the 2022 Hubballi riots, which erupted following a provocative social media post and saw violent mobs attack a police station.
The PIL raised serious concerns over the motive behind the selective withdrawal. It alleged that the list included politically influential individuals—such as former ministers, sitting MLAs, and office-bearers of powerful organisations. The petitioner argued that the move lacked transparency and was seemingly aimed at shielding allies of the ruling party.
“Criminal cases registered across Karnataka between 2008 and 2023 were reviewed, and 43 were handpicked for withdrawal. Many of these involved prominent political figures and influential activists, raising serious doubts about the impartiality of the exercise,” the plea stated.
Court’s Direction and Aftermath
With the High Court quashing the government’s order, all affected cases will now proceed in accordance with law. The court’s declaration that the directive was void from inception implies that all withdrawal applications filed under its influence will be treated as invalid.
