The Karnataka High Court has put a temporary stop to the Congress‑led state government’s order directing the withdrawal of prosecution in 52 criminal cases, which involved politicians, pro‑Kannada organisations, farmers, Dalit activists, and cases arising from communal violence across the state.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice KS Hemalekha passed the interim order on Thursday, July 2, while hearing a public interest petition filed by advocate Girish Bharadwaj, who has challenged the legality of the May 27 Government Order (GO) issued by the Home Department.
The High Court has stayed the operation of the GO, which directed public prosecutors to withdraw 52 identified cases from trial, and has instructed the state not to act on it until the court completes its examination of the matter. Notices have gone out to the government as well as the Directorate of Prosecution, with the bench giving them till August to file detailed responses before the next hearing. Until then, the prosecutions will continue as they are.
The GO in question stems from a May 21 cabinet meeting chaired by former chief minister Siddaramaiah, in which ministers cleared a proposal to seek the closing of 52 criminal cases registered in different police stations across Karnataka.
The list includes around 10 cases against Kannada activist Vatal Nagaraj, matters arising from Cauvery and Kalasa‑Banduri protests, and several cases linked to farmers and Dalit activists, as well as cases connected to the 2022 communal violence at the Ladle Mushtaq Dargah in Aland, Kalaburagi district.
At the time, Home Minister G Parameshwara defended the cabinet’s decision, saying it followed a sub‑committee review to identify legal grounds for dropping the cases, based on long‑standing representations from affected groups.
Bharadwaj’s petition argues that the GO violates the High Court’s 2025 ruling on case withdrawals and revives a pattern the court has already struck down in earlier litigation. The Bengaluru‑based advocate has also told the court that his RTI request for detailed information on the 52 cases was turned down citing confidentiality, and that he could obtain only one notification relating to a case at Aland police station in Kalaburagi. He added that internal notes from the Department of Prosecutions show senior prosecutors at multiple levels consistently advising against withdrawal even as the May 21 cabinet decision and its records remain outside the public domain.
In May 2025, the High Court set aside a GO dated October 15, 2024, by the same Congress government that had directed public prosecutors to withdraw 43 criminal cases, holding that the state had exceeded its authority under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and undermined the independent role of public prosecutors.
Section 321 of the CrPC allows a public prosecutor to seek withdrawal from a criminal prosecution, but only with the consent of the trial court and after independently assessing that the move serves public interest. Courts have held that governments may recommend withdrawal in specific cases, but cannot turn it into a blanket cabinet directive.
On Thursday, the High Court indicated the May 27 order appears, on initial examination, to clash with Section 321 of CrPC and its own 2025 ruling on case withdrawals, and has therefore kept the GO on hold while it examines the issue.
The stay has been welcomed by the opposition BJP, which had sharply criticised the Congress‑led government’s move to close the 52 cases, calling it “arbitrary and driven by
appeasement politics”. BJP leaders, including Karkala MLA Sunil Kumar, as reported by NDTV, have hailed the High Court’s order as a “slap in the face” to what they describe as the state’s “case‑withdrawal campaign”, pointing in particular to the Aland Ladle Mashak Dargah riot cases as examples of the government trying to “shield” serious offenders and politically connected figures.
The Congress-led government has argued publicly that many of these targeted cases are old, stem from agitations, and involve activists seeking relief for years, and that bringing closure to such prosecutions does not erode the rule of law.
This article was written by a student interning with TNM.