Why Did Siddaramaiah Drop 52 Criminal Cases? Karnataka Row Explained

On May 22, 2026, the Karnataka Cabinet met and approved the withdrawal of prosecution in 52 criminal cases. Five days later, the state Home Department issued a formal notification directing public prosecutors to seek withdrawal from the relevant courts under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The cases covered a broad range of offences and accused; farmers, pro-Kannada activists, communal violence accused, and several BJP leaders.

On July 2, 2026, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court led by Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru stayed the entire order. The court found, prima facie, that the government's action appeared contrary to its own earlier directions governing how Section 321 may be invoked. The State Home Department, the Directorate of Prosecution, and the government have been directed to file their responses before the next hearing on September 28.

Why Were 52 Cases Withdrawn?

The Karnataka Cabinet's stated rationale for the May 22 decision was that the cases involved farmers and pro-Kannada activists, categories the government framed as deserving of leniency in the public interest. Ministers also pointed to the inclusion of cases against BJP leaders as evidence that the move was not politically targeted.

Karnataka Minister Priyank Kharge, speaking after the High Court's stay, maintained that the Cabinet had acted entirely within the legal framework and had not violated any statutory provisions.

Senior advocate Venkatesh Dalwai, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the state had withdrawn the cases in blatant violation of established legal procedure based on the direct recommendations of three senior ministers in the government.

Under the law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court and repeatedly confirmed by the Karnataka High Court itself, the power to withdraw from prosecution vests in the public prosecutor — not in the state cabinet, and not based on executive directions.

Which Cases Were Included?

The most politically sensitive element of the withdrawal list was the inclusion of at least eight cases connected with the 2022 Aland Ladle Mashak Dargah communal riots in Kalaburagi district. Those cases arose from an incident on March 1, 2022, when a group of BJP workers sought to perform a purification ritual of a Shivalinga inside the Ladle Mashak Dargah, alleging the shrine had been desecrated.

The government's withdrawal order also covered cases involving farmers, likely arising from protest-related incidents, and cases connected to pro-Kannada agitation activities.

Why Did The High Court Intervene?

Advocate Girish Bharadwaj filed the Public Interest Litigation that triggered the stay, contending that the government's May 27 notification was virtually identical to an earlier Government Order that the High Court had quashed in May 2025.The High Court's fundamental objection is procedural and constitutional.

Section 321 of the CrPC and its successor provision, Section 360 of the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — vests the power to seek withdrawal in the Public Prosecutor in charge of the case, not in the state government.

When the government issues a blanket notification directing public prosecutors to withdraw a list of cases, it is — in the court's reading — substituting executive authority for the independent prosecutorial judgment the law requires.

Can Governments Withdraw Criminal Cases?

Yes, but within strict limits. The object of Section 321 is to reserve power with the executive government to withdraw criminal cases on broader grounds of public policy, such as inexpediency of prosecution for reasons of state, maintenance of law and order, public peace and harmony, or a changed social, economic, and political situation.

The Supreme Court has held that withdrawal can serve legitimate purposes — reconciling communities after communal tension, closing old political cases where prosecuting would be counterproductive.

But the same Supreme Court jurisprudence imposes a key safeguard; the Public Prosecutor must independently assess whether withdrawal is in the public interest, not merely execute a cabinet decision. When it is apparent that the prosecutor has not applied independent judgment, or that the direction came directly from the cabinet without any prosecutorial assessment, courts have consistently struck down the action.

Congress Vs BJP Record

A Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy report documented that the number of criminal cases withdrawn by state governments spikes during election years — particularly when there is a change in the political party in power. The trend spans parties across the political spectrum. The report cited how multiple parties had made case withdrawals election promises: AAP in the 2013 Delhi elections, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha in 2019, Congress in Madhya Pradesh and Odisha in 2019, and the DMK in 2020 Tamil Nadu elections.

The provision can be used selectively to benefit one political constituency while ignoring others similarly situated. Karnataka's Congress government has argued that its list includes BJP-linked accused as well. The composition of the 52-case list has not been made fully public, making independent verification difficult.

Is This Political Patronage?

The question the Karnataka High Court's intervention forces is not whether governments can withdraw cases. It is whether the legal structure that enables withdrawal is being used as a tool of political reward and electoral calculation rather than genuine public policy.

Petitioner Girish Bharadwaj argued that the decision to withdraw prosecution was not based on any public interest, and that the government had gone to great lengths to appease certain sections without concern for the morale of police personnel who were attacked by the rioters.

The Karnataka High Court's repeated intervention is now the only consistent check on this executive power. The September 28 hearing will determine whether the government can justify the May 27 notification as a genuine exercise of prosecutorial discretion in the public interest or whether the court finds, as it has before, that it was an executive instruction dressed in legal language.