Karnataka govt had by August 31 order decided to drop criminal cases against 61 ‘netas’
CJ-led HC bench says public prosecutor is not a ‘postbox’ to receive govt diktats
BENGALURU:
In a significant order that points to the arbitrariness of the executive ‘pardoning its own’, the Karnataka High Court on Monday stayed a state government decision of August 31 to drop criminal prosecutions in 61 cases against elected representatives and ministers.
The order conveys a strong message to the government against ‘interfering’ in the prosecution of MLAs/MPs, and was passed by a division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Vishwajith Shetty.
File objections, govt told
The order pointedly says, “We direct that no further steps shall be taken on the basis of the (government) order dated August 31, 2020.” The HC has directed the government to file objections by January 22 to the petition by an NGO. The matter will next be heard on January 29.
The NGO, People’s Union for Civil Liberties-Karnataka, has challenged the August 31 order of the government, contending that it flies in the face of the Supreme Court order in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay versus Union of India.
‘Judicial conscience’
In an earlier hearing, the HC had noted that courts are not bound by such executive decisions and can reject prayers for withdrawal of prosecution. “No court is bound by such a decision taken to withdraw from the prosecution. Even if an application is made under Section 321 of the CrPC, the courts are duty bound to assess whether a prima facie case is made out or not and the courts have the power to reject the prayer,” it had said.
#Breaking: Karnataka #HighCourt stays #BJP led State government’s #notification which had dropped 61 #criminal #Cases against #ministers, #MPs, #MLAs
— Thebengalurulive/ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಲೈವ್ (@bengalurulive_) December 21, 2020
The Bench comprising #ChiefJustice #AbhayShreeniwasOka & #Justice #VishwajithShetty passed the order#Bangalore #Bengaluru pic.twitter.com/LIeefMdjv4
It had also opined that a public prosecutor cannot act like a post box or submit to the diktats of the government when the executive directs withdrawal of criminal cases against legislators. The prosecutor should act objectively as he/she is an officer of the court, the HC had observed.
Citing the SC judgement decision in SK Shukla and others Vs state of UP and others, the HC had said, “It is held that even if the government instructs the public prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution of a case, the latter after applying his mind to the facts of the case may either agree with the instructions and file a petition before the court stating grounds of withdrawal, or disagree therewith having found a good case for prosecution, and refuse to file the withdrawal petition.”
The impugned government order had said, “The government has granted permission for the withdrawal of prosecution of the 61 cases mentioned in the annexure under Section 321 of the CrPC. The Director, Department of Prosecutions and Government Litigation, is suggested (sic) to take appropriate steps to file necessary applications before the concerned courts where the 61 cases mentioned in the annexure is pending, for their withdrawal.”
