The Karnataka High Court on Monday stayed the state government’s decision to drop cases against 61 BJP legislators and ministers in the state. The HC was hearing a plea filed by the People Union of Civil Liberties, Karnataka, challenging the Yediyurappa government’s order dated August 31 which granted permission for the withdrawal of prosecution cases under the section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
The HC division bench has also directed the state government to file its objections by January 22, 2021, and has posted the next hearing for January 29. The court ordered that “no further steps be taken on the basis of order dated August 31, 2020." The cases were dropped by the Karnataka government earlier this year under Section 321 of Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which gives the power of ‘Withdrawal from prosecution’ to the state government.
On August 31, 2020, the Yediyurappa government, based on the recommendation of Home Minister Basavaraj Bommai, who headed a sub-committee, withdrew cases against several sitting ministers, including the Law, Tourism and Agriculture ministers. Cases against other elected representatives like Mysuru MP Pratap Simha, Mandya independent MP Sumalatha Ambarish, BJP MLA fromYelburga Hallapa Achar, BJP MLA from Honnalli and CM’s political secretary MP Renukacharya too had been dropped.
In November 2020, the HC also issued a notice to the state government and the police department to respond to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a city-based advocate which alleged that between 8 August 2014 to 5 May 2020, over 570 cases have been withdrawn by the consecutive governments. The HC has also asked the Prosecution Department under the state government to respond to the notice. The HC asked the state to ‘to justify whether it has the power to issue directions to the Director of Prosecution for withdrawing any criminal cases under Section 321 of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973.’
While the move to drop cases had attracted criticism from not just the Opposition but even the civil society, the state government had defended its position and said that it was a ‘routine’ matter and the cases had been filed against the elected representatives for taking up ‘public matters’.