The Supreme Court declines to reconsider its order allowing Himachal Pradesh to withdraw criminal cases against MPs and MLAs, refusing a plea that sought to reopen the permission granted to the State.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a plea seeking reconsideration of its earlier order that permitted the Himachal Pradesh government to withdraw criminal cases against sitting and former MPs and MLAs, which arose from protests held during the COVID-19 period [L Ramanathan v. Union of India]. The allegations in the cases that were withdrawn were never tested at trial, and the withdrawal of a prosecution is not a finding on guilt or innocence.
The order under challenge was passed on 9 September 2026 by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, in an appeal by the State of Himachal Pradesh against a High Court order that had allowed withdrawal in only some of the cases.
The order that was sought to be reconsidered
The State had sought to withdraw prosecution in more than 60 criminal cases against legislators. The cases related to public demonstrations and dharnas held during the COVID-19 period, and involved provisions including Section 269, Section 353 and Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 8B of the National Highways Act and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act. The High Court had permitted withdrawal only in a part of the cases. The Supreme Court found no basis for allowing only partial withdrawal and accepted the State’s application in full.
The Court noted that none of the cases disclosed the commission of any grave or heinous crime, that the accused were public representatives raising public grievances, and that continuing the prosecutions would consume court time needed for more serious cases.
There is not even a remote suggestion that accused are hardened criminals or indulged in heinous offenses.
The legal backdrop
Under the Supreme Court’s 2021 directions in the Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay case, a State cannot withdraw a prosecution against a sitting or former legislator without the leave of the High Court. In this matter the Supreme Court, which was hearing the State’s challenge to the High Court’s partial refusal, itself granted the permission for withdrawal. The plea for reconsideration questioned that permission, and has now been turned down.
Why the order matters
The refusal leaves the permission for withdrawal undisturbed, so the cases stand withdrawn. The State’s position, accepted by the Court, is that the cases arose from protests over public grievances during an extraordinary period. The petitioner’s contention is that the order deserved a second look. The Court has not taken that course.
The matter also keeps in focus the safeguard of judicial scrutiny before prosecutions against lawmakers are dropped, and the balance between that safeguard and the use of court time for matters involving heinous offences.
Case Title: L Ramanathan v. Union of India
Order under challenge: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Court on its Own Motion, SLP (Crl.) No. 2770 of 2026, decided on September 9, 2026
Bench (order under challenge): Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, Supreme Court of India