Karnataka High Court stays State decision to withdraw 52 criminal cases including Alanda riots case

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday halted the State's decision to withdraw prosecution in 52 criminal cases including the Alanda communal riots case.

A Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice KS Hemalekha stayed the Government Order (GO) in this regard.

The Bench opined that the GO should not be implemented until the court examines its legality.

The Court passed the interim order after noting an argument that the High Court had earlier set aside a similar notification in May last year.

"In view of the above, the impugned order dated 27.05.2026 is stayed till the next date of hearing," the Court ordered.

The Court also issued notice to the State's Home Department and its Prosecution Department and sought their responses. The Court directed the State to file its statement of objections before the next date of hearing.

The matter has been posted for further hearing on September 28.

The interim order was passed on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by advocate Girish Bharadwaj.

Bharadwaj moved the Court against the State Home Department's notification dated May 27, 2026, directing public prosecutors to withdraw certain criminal cases pending in various police stations across the State.

Bharadwaj contended that this notification was virtually identical to an earlier GO that was quashed by the High Court in May 2025.

As per his PIL, the State had approved the proposal to withdraw the 52 criminal cases based on the recommendation of a cabinet sub-committee comprising three senior Ministers.

The petitioner claimed that the proposal stemmed from a representation submitted by the Managing Committee of Dargha Hazrat Malikul Mashaikh Makhdoom Ladle Ansari (Sunni) to the State's Health Minister UT Khader on September 10, 2023. The representation requested the withdrawal of criminal cases registered against members of the community.

According to the petition, the cases proposed to be withdrawn involve serious offences affecting public order, communal harmony, public servants and public property.

These offences include unlawful assembly, rioting, criminal conspiracy, promoting enmity between groups, assault on public servants, attempt to murder, damage to public property, and offences under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

During today's hearing, advocate Venkatesh Dalwai appeared for Bharadwaj and argued that such criminal cases involving crimes against society cannot be withdrawn on political or extraneous considerations.

It was alleged that the proposed withdrawal was greenlit by the State cabinet on May 14, despite adverse opinions from various departments and in disregard of the law laid down by the High Court.

Dalwai added that Health Minister UT Khader has also been impleaded as a respondent to the petition, in his individual capacity.

Khader was "the catalyst in the entire process", it was contended.

However, the Bench declined to issue notice to Khader at this stage.

The Court also cautioned Bharadwaj regarding certain submissions made based on statements allegedly made on the floor of the State Legislature. The Bench observed that such statements may be protected by legislative privilege. The Court, therefore, advised Bharadwaj's counsel to examine whether such pleadings were legally permissible.

Dalawai replied that legislative immunity is a separate issue, and that there was correspondence supporting the averments made in the petition.

Meanwhile, Additional Advocate General Taranath Pujari sought two weeks to file the State's response. The Bench said the State was free to take the time it required to file its objections but that the GO would remain inoperative in the meantime.

"You take whatever time you want, but this order won't be implemented. Until we have decided this issue, how will you implement it?" the Bench remarked.