The Karnataka cabinet has recently taken a controversial step by approving the withdrawal of as many as 60 criminal cases filed across the state. These cases were not limited to any single group but spanned across a wide range of activists and political supporters, including farmers, Dalit organisations, pro-Kannada groups, and pro-Hindu activists. Each case had been registered in different police stations over the years, reflecting the intensity of public protests, political demonstrations, and local disputes that often turn into law-and-order challenges in the state. By deciding to quash them, the government has sparked a heated debate on whether the move upholds justice or bends the law for political convenience.
Among the most striking withdrawals is the case involving supporters of Deputy Chief Minister D. K. Shivakumar. Back in 2019, when Shivakumar was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate, his loyalists resorted to violent protests, pelting stones at buses and targeting government offices in Kanakapura. The unrest had led to multiple arrests and widespread damage. With the cabinet’s decision, these charges are now set aside, raising questions about whether leaders in power are shielding their own supporters from legal scrutiny. A similar case from 2012, involving Shivakumar’s brother and then Bangalore Rural MP D. K. Suresh, has also been withdrawn. In that incident, his followers had staged an aggressive protest after Suresh was excluded from a ceremony honouring B. R. Ambedkar, which had led to tense confrontations with the then state leadership.
The list of withdrawn cases goes beyond just the Shivakumar family’s supporters. Incidents such as the 2019 stone-pelting episode in Chittapur, which broke out after police intercepted cattle being transported based on a complaint by Hindu activists, are also being nullified. Likewise, several clashes that erupted during Ganesha processions in Ramanagar, Koppal, and other districts—cases initially pursued following the recommendation of a BJP minister at the time—have now been struck down. The cabinet has also extended this largesse to farmer groups and Dalit activists who were booked during state-wide agitations, where their protests often escalated into confrontations with law enforcement.
The opposition, particularly the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has not taken this decision lightly. Senior BJP leader C. N. Ashwath Narayan has strongly condemned the move, arguing that it is nothing short of an abuse of power. According to him, the Karnataka High Court has previously set clear guidelines that governments cannot arbitrarily withdraw criminal cases for political gain. He stressed that the law requires such cases to go through trial, allowing the courts to decide whether the accused is guilty or innocent. By withdrawing them prematurely, he argued, the government is bypassing due process and undermining the rule of law.
Narayan further accused the ruling Congress of using state machinery for personal and partisan purposes. In his words, this is less about justice or public welfare and more about shielding leaders and their close circles from accountability. He alleged that the government’s move prioritises protecting its own political base over upholding the larger principles of fairness and justice. His statement reflects the larger concern that such selective withdrawals erode public confidence in the legal system, sending a message that the powerful can sidestep consequences while ordinary citizens remain bound by the law.
This decision by the Karnataka cabinet, therefore, is not merely about dropping a set of old cases. It has triggered a wider discussion on governance, accountability, and the separation of law from politics. Supporters of the move may argue that many of these cases were politically motivated to suppress dissent, but critics maintain that mass withdrawals set a dangerous precedent. By blurring the line between justice and political expediency, the government risks creating an impression that legal systems can be bent at will—an impression that could have long-lasting consequences on public trust in democracy and the rule of law.
