SC agrees to examine Himachal Government’s plea for withdrawal of cases against MPs, MLAs

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a plea of the Himachal Pradesh government against a high court order not allowing the withdrawal of 45 cases lodged against MPs and MLAs, including those lodged during the tenure of the previous BJP government against Congress workers for holding rallies during the Covid pandemic.

A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued a notice on the plea challenging the April 26, 2024, order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh not allowing withdrawal of criminal cases against sitting and former lawmakers of the State.

The high court partly allowed the plea of the Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu-led Congress government to withdraw only 15 cases recommended for withdrawal.

The high court noted that out of the 65 cases recommended for withdrawal by the home department, five, including one against Chief Minister Sukhu, have been disposed of during the pendency of the petition.

On Friday (February 6, 2026), senior advocate V. Giri, appearing for the State government, sought permission of the top court to withdraw 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 Bench issued a notice and posted the matter for hearing on March 16.

On April 26, 2024, the high court 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 said that though according to Section 321 of the CrPC, there was no requirement of seeking permission of the high court before withdrawing prosecutions, but such permission has become mandatory in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India (2020) case, where the accused were sitting former MLAs.

It noted that the 2020 decision of the apex court said that the public prosecutor may withdraw from a prosecution not merely on the ground of paucity of evidence but also to further the broad ends of public justice.

The high court added that the apex court said the public prosecutor must 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.