The Karnataka High Court has stayed the Congress government's decision to withdraw prosecution in 52 criminal cases, including those stemming from the communal riots at Aland Ladle Mashak Dargah in Aland taluk of Kalaburagi district. The interim order, passed on 2 July, has dealt a political blow to the state government and reignited the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)'s allegations of 'appeasement politics' against the ruling Congress.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha passed the interim stay after prima facie finding fault with the state's invocation of Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to seek withdrawal of the prosecutions. The Bench observed that the government's action appeared contrary to the High Court's own earlier directions governing the withdrawal of criminal cases.

Background: A Pattern of Challenged Withdrawals

This is not the first time the Karnataka government's case-withdrawal decisions have been struck down. In May 2025, the High Court had set aside a government order directing Public Prosecutors to withdraw prosecution in 43 criminal cases involving persons accused in communal violence and other offences — including cases arising from the Hubballi riots. The current batch of 52 cases marks the second such attempt, making this a recurring flashpoint between the Congress administration and the judiciary.

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by advocate Girish Bharadwaj, who argued that the executive had usurped the independent discretionary powers vested in the Public Prosecutor under Section 321 of the CrPC, 1973. Bharadwaj further contended that the withdrawal decision was not grounded in any discernible public interest.

What the Court Found

The Division Bench's prima facie finding centred on a critical procedural concern: under Section 321 of the CrPC, the Public Prosecutor is required to independently apply their mind before deciding to withdraw a case — and is not bound by government orders. The High Court had clarified this principle in an earlier ruling. Despite that precedent, the state placed the withdrawal before the Cabinet, which approved all 52 cases. The court has now issued notice to the State Government and the Directorate of Prosecution, directing them to file responses within two weeks.

Notably, in almost all of the 52 cases, the prosecution itself had maintained that the cases should proceed — a fact that reportedly weighed on the court's prima facie assessment.

The Political Fallout

BJP National Yuva Morcha President and Bengaluru South MP Tejasvi Surya welcomed the order and congratulated Bharadwaj, calling it 'a slap on the state government's face, which sought to selectively and unconstitutionally withdraw cases to appease its vote bank.'

The BJP has described the High Court's order as a 'tight slap' to the Congress government, framing the attempted withdrawals as a textbook case of minority appeasement ahead of elections.

State Home Minister Priyank Kharge pushed back, saying the government would study the court's order before taking any further step. 'We will discuss the matter after obtaining a copy of the High Court's order. The list of cases also includes those involving BJP leaders. We have not issued any order in violation of the law. The Cabinet decided within the legal framework,' Kharge said.

Petitioner's Argument: Police Morale at Stake

Advocate Bharadwaj argued that the cases in question are far from routine. Several involve attacks on police personnel and their vehicles during the Aland riots — incidents he described as amounting to 'a full-scale riot.' He warned that allowing the accused to go free would demoralise the police force and disturb the peace of society.

'The government should think about the morale of the police personnel who were attacked by the rioters,' Bharadwaj said. 'Allowing rioters to go free would certainly dent the image of both the government and the police. It would also have serious consequences for society.'

With the High Court's notice returnable in two weeks, the Congress government now faces a legal and political reckoning over its prosecution withdrawal policy — and whether it can distinguish legitimate discretion from executive overreach.