The Himachal Pradesh Government has moved the Supreme Court seeking withdrawal of 45 cases lodged against sitting and former MPs/MLAs, including those lodged during the tenure of the previous BJP government against Congress workers for holding protests and rallies during the Covid pandemic.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Friday issued a notice on the state government’s petition challenging the April 26, 2024, order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court disallowing withdrawal of criminal cases against the lawmakers.
The top court will take up the matter on March 16.
The High Court had partly allowed the Congress government’s plea to withdraw only 15 cases recommended for withdrawal.
Out of the 65 cases recommended for withdrawal by the Home department, five, including one against Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu, have been disposed of during the pendency of the petition, the High Court had noted.
According to Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court’s permission was not needed for withdrawal of prosecution.
However, it became mandatory in view of the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India (2020) case involving sitting and former MLAs as accused.
The 2020 SC verdict said the public prosecutor may withdraw a prosecution not merely on the ground of paucity of evidence but also to further the broad ends of public justice.
On behalf of the Himachal government, senior counsel V. Giri, urged the top court to allow withdrawal of the cases in public interest after taking independent opinions of public prosecutors and district attorneys in consultation with the district magistrates and superintendents of police.
The High Court had refused to allow withdrawal of cases pertaining to offences under Sections 269 (negligent acts likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life), 353 (assaulting or using criminal force against a public servant to deter them from discharging their duties), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, and sections of the National Highways Act and Disaster Management Act.
The High Court had noted that the top court verdict required the public prosecutor to formulate an independent opinion before seeking the consent of the court to withdraw from the prosecution and that the power vested under Section 321 of the CrPC is a responsibility which is to be utilised in public interest and cannot be used for extraneous and political considerations and has to be used with utmost good faith to serve the larger public interest.