The Bombay High Court has dismissed as withdrawn eight petitions filed by BJP leaders seeking to cancel First Information Reports (FIRs) that were registered against them during the Covid-19 pandemic. These FIRs were filed at a time when the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government was in power in Maharashtra, and the BJP was in opposition. The cases involved senior party figures, including former MP Gopal Shetty, against whom two FIRs were registered; former MLA Sunil Rane, who faced five FIRs; and sitting MLA Manisha Chaudhry from Dahisar, who was booked in one case. Most of these cases originated from Mumbai’s suburban areas.
The charges against the leaders were linked to alleged violations of pandemic-related restrictions, specifically under sections related to the “disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant.” The FIRs stemmed from instances such as political gatherings, protests, or public activities conducted in defiance of Covid-19 safety protocols that were in force at the time.
Seeking to have these FIRs quashed, the three BJP leaders had approached the Bombay High Court, arguing that the cases were politically motivated and filed in retaliation for their opposition to the then MVA government. However, the division bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad declined to intervene, clarifying that there already exists a structured process for reviewing and withdrawing such politically influenced cases.
The court explained that the state government has established a cabinet subcommittee responsible for reviewing requests to withdraw FIRs filed against political figures. This committee evaluates whether the offences are minor, non-violent, and involve no damage to public property. If the subcommittee finds that the charges do not warrant prosecution, it forwards its recommendations to regional committees and senior officials for further scrutiny.
Following this process, the final decision lies with the state government, which, after due diligence by prosecutors and senior police officers, submits a formal plea before the High Court to withdraw the cases. Once approved, the High Court’s withdrawal order is communicated to the lower courts where the cases are pending trial.
During the hearing, the advocate representing the BJP leaders argued that the FIRs were lodged merely for participating in protests held in the public interest and that such cases should be quashed immediately. However, the bench reminded him that MPs and MLAs cannot directly petition the High Court for cancellation and must first follow the prescribed administrative procedure. When the lawyer persisted with his plea, the judges remarked, “You are not able to understand,” and proceeded to record in their order that the petitions stood “dismissed as withdrawn.”
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s position that political FIRs registered during extraordinary circumstances like the pandemic must be handled through established government mechanisms rather than through direct judicial intervention. It also highlights the state’s ongoing scrutiny of politically sensitive cases filed during the MVA administration.
