April 18, 2026

High Court Nod Needed To Withdraw Criminal Cases Against Netas

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2021-08-31 02:24:28

About the Author

Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack

View all posts by this Author

There are many reasons why politicians seldom get punished for their misdeeds. But the two chief reasons are putting pressure on the system to delay cases and getting the cases withdrawn when their party or a party aligned with them comes to power. Lalu Yadav's case was an exception as well as a pointer that if the will is there, such cases can be taken to their logical conclusion. But sadly, all political parties, without exception, protect their own, those aligned with them and even those whom they think they can win over by withdrawing cases, delaying them, transferring investigating officers or judges hearing the case or otherwise weakening the case of the state so that a conviction does not happen.

The Supreme Court has rightly taken cognizance of the fact. It has ordered that no state government can henceforth withdraw criminal cases against MPs and MLAs without the permission of the High Court in the state. Hence, it will not be upon the whim and fancy of the government of the day that cases against netas will be withdrawn. It will have to apply to the high court, spell out the reasons for the withdrawal and do so only if the court agrees. There is no doubt that frivolous cases are lodged against opposition politicians for vendetta. The high courts will consider which cases fall under this and allow their withdrawal as per merit.

Governments and political parties must realize that filing frivolous cases - for example, booking netas for peaceful protests, unlawful assembly or obstructing public servants - means that these cases drag on for years and further clog the already groaning justice delivery system. In fact, the Supreme Court pointed out the shortage of judges to hear the cases when the government supported the demand for speedy trial of netas. It is upon the governments, both at the Centre and in the states, to reduce frivolous litigation and ease the pressure on the justice delivery system. Simultaneously, vacancies in judicial posts must be filled promptly and to tide over the backlog, the suggestion of the Supreme Court to invoke Article 224A of the constitution to appoint retired judges as ad hoc judges in the High Courts must be accepted and such judges must be appointed forthwith.