Introduction
The Karnataka High Court has issued a temporary restraining order against the State’s decision to withdraw prosecution in 52 criminal cases, including the high-profile Alanda communal riots case. This action was taken by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice KS Hemalekha, who have put the State Government Order (GO) on hold to examine its legal standing.
Legal Proceedings
The interim order was granted following arguments presented by advocate Girish Bharadwaj, who filed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the State Home Department’s notification dated May 27, 2026. The notification directed public prosecutors to dismiss certain criminal cases pending in various police stations across Karnataka. Bharadwaj argued that this notification mirrored a previous GO that the High Court had nullified in May 2025.
Concerns Over Withdrawal
The petitioner highlighted that the proposal to withdraw the 52 criminal cases was initiated based on a recommendation from a cabinet sub-committee composed of three senior Ministers. The suggestion stemmed from a representation submitted by the Managing Committee of Dargha Hazrat Malikul Mashaikh Makhdoom Ladle Ansari (Sunni) to Health Minister UT Khader on September 10, 2023, advocating for the withdrawal of cases against community members.
The contentious cases involve severe charges such as unlawful assembly, rioting, criminal conspiracy, and promoting enmity between different groups. They also include offences against public servants, attempts to murder, and damage to public property, which are violations under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
Arguments Against Withdrawal
Advocate Venkatesh Dalwai represented Bharadwaj in court, asserting that the withdrawal of such cases, which significantly impact societal welfare, should not be based on political or extraneous factors. He argued that the State cabinet approved this withdrawal on May 14, despite dissenting opinions from various departments and in disregard of the High Court’s established legal precedents.
More Read
Dalwai further pointed out that Health Minister UT Khader, who played a crucial role in the process, has been named as a respondent in the petition in his individual capacity. However, the Bench has currently refrained from issuing a notice to Khader.
Court’s Observations
The Court cautioned Bharadwaj regarding certain claims based on statements allegedly made within the State Legislature, reminding that such statements might be shielded by legislative privilege. Bharadwaj’s counsel was advised to verify the legal permissibility of these assertions. Dalwai countered that legislative immunity is a separate matter, emphasizing that the petition is supported by corresponding documentation.
State’s Response and Further Proceedings
During the proceedings, Additional Advocate General Taranath Pujari requested a two-week period to submit the State’s response. The Bench agreed but maintained that the GO would remain inactive in the interim. “You take whatever time you want, but this order won’t be implemented. Until we have decided this issue, how will you implement it?” remarked the Bench.
The case is slated for further hearing on September 28, pending responses from the State’s Home and Prosecution Departments.
