Section 321 CrPC Is Not a Blank Cheque for Political Favouritism:  Karnataka High Court Strikes Down Political Order to Withdraw 43 Criminal Cases

Public Prosecutor Is Not a Tool of the Government — In a powerful rebuke of political interference in the criminal justice system, the Karnataka High Court, quashing a Government Order dated 15.10.2024 that sought withdrawal of prosecution in 43 criminal cases, including those against sitting and former MLAs. Calling the move an “abuse of power” and an “attack on the rule of law,” the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice K.V. Aravind held that:

“The executive Government cannot issue a fiat in this regard. It cannot wield pressure on the Public Prosecutor’s independence… Any violation on this core is a violation of rule of law itself.”

The Court emphasized that prosecutorial discretion under Section 321 CrPC cannot be replaced by political whim, and reaffirmed that the Public Prosecutor is a limb of the judicial process—not a servant of the Cabinet.

The Public Interest Litigation, filed by advocate Girish Bharadwaj, challenged the State’s Home Department order directing withdrawal of criminal proceedings in 43 FIRs registered across various police stations. The petitioner contended that the decision was politically motivated and violated both statutory procedure and judicial restraint imposed in Sudha Katwa v. State of Karnataka, where the High Court had already stayed blanket withdrawals of cases against legislators.

Crucially, the case revealed that the Department of Prosecution, Police Department, and Law Department had each raised serious objections to the proposed withdrawals, yet the Cabinet went ahead and issued directions, invoking a “policy decision.”

 “The Government Order Is Non Est from Inception”

The Court left no doubt that the Government had overstepped its bounds by attempting to control the prosecutorial process. It quoted the Supreme Court's decision in Sheo Nandan Paswan:

“The Public Prosecutor is not a mouthpiece of the Government. He must act independently in the interests of justice.”

Noting that no reasons were offered for withdrawal in any of the 43 cases, the Court said:

“Section 321 CrPC does not permit mechanical or political withdrawal. The statute mandates case-specific reasoning and judicial satisfaction.”

It further drew attention to the foundational ruling in Balwant Singh v. State of Bihar, where the Supreme Court held:

“The Criminal Procedure Code is the only master of the Public Prosecutor.”

The Court declared that the Karnataka Government’s action was in direct conflict with these settled principles, and therefore legally untenable.

Cabinet Notes and Confidentiality — No Shield for Illegality

The State tried to defend its action by arguing that the Cabinet note produced by the petitioner was confidential and should not have been accepted. The High Court rejected this submission, relying on Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, stating:

“There is no bar on admissibility of documents merely because they were procured improperly, so long as they are relevant and genuine.”

The judgment thus asserted the primacy of truth and transparency in public interest litigation over procedural technicalities.

 “Withdrawal for Political Considerations Is the Worst Kind of Abuse”

This ruling marks a bold defense of prosecutorial independence and a stern warning against political interference in criminal proceedings. The Court underscored:

“The Public Prosecutor’s discretion is not just procedural—it is integral to the integrity of the criminal justice system. When the Government Order seeks to predetermine or compel that discretion, it violates the spirit of Section 321 CrPC and undermines public trust.”

The High Court allowed the petition and struck down the Government Order as unconstitutional, ensuring that the cases in question will proceed unless independently and justifiably withdrawn by the concerned Public Prosecutors with judicial approval.

Date of Decision: 29 May 2025