SC Lets Himachal Drop Covid-Era Cases Against Legislators

Supreme Court Allows Himachal to Withdraw Remaining Covid-Era Prosecutions of Sitting and Former Legislators

Published: 13 September 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by the State of Himachal Pradesh and permitted it to withdraw prosecution in all the remaining cases against sitting and former MPs and MLAs arising from the Covid-19 period. The High Court had allowed withdrawal in only 15 of 60 cases. The Bench found no grave offence alleged and held that continuing such prosecutions would serve neither criminal justice nor the public interest (paras 4, 6-9).

Key holdings

Under the direction of 10 August 2021 in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, no prosecution against a sitting or former MP or MLA may be withdrawn without the High Court's leave (para 3).

The Covid-era cases disclosed no grave or heinous crime and essentially concerned dharnas and raising public grievances (para 6).

Continuing such prosecutions would serve neither criminal justice nor the public interest and would hamper serious pending matters (para 7).

The High Court's judgment was modified and withdrawal was permitted in all cases remaining for consideration (paras 8-9).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

In Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (order of 10 August 2021) the Supreme Court directed that no prosecution against a sitting or former MP or MLA be withdrawn without the High Court's leave (para 3). Acting on instructions of 31 December 2022, the State asked the High Court for leave to withdraw 65 cases; five were disposed of meanwhile, leaving 60 (paras 2, 4). On 26 April 2024 the High Court allowed withdrawal in 15 cases and refused it in 45 (para 4). Four of those had already ended in acquittal or discharge and two, the order records, "had been wrongly repealed in the application", so permission was effectively refused in 39 matters (para 4).

Court's Findings

A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana grouped the cases into five categories, all from the Covid-19 period: Section 269 IPC (acts likely to spread infection), Section 353 IPC without any instance of injury or assault actually caused, Sections 504 and 506 IPC, Section 8B of the National Highways Act, 1956 (dharnas on national highways) and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (para 5). The incidents arose in "exceptional circumstances, marked by unforeseen conditions" (para 6). None of the cases disclosed a grave or heinous crime, nothing suggested the accused were hardened or repeat offenders, and the allegations essentially concerned taking part in public dharnas and raising public grievances (para 6). Continuing such prosecutions would neither serve the administration of criminal justice nor benefit the public interest, and would hamper other serious matters awaiting decision (para 7). The Court therefore saw no reason not to allow the State's application in its entirety for all cases still under consideration (para 8).

Legal Principle

Prosecutions of sitting or former legislators arising from the exceptional circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic, which disclose no grave or heinous offence, show no hardened or repeat offending and essentially concern dharnas and public grievances, may be withdrawn with leave, since continuing them would serve neither criminal justice nor the public interest and would hamper serious pending matters (paras 6-8).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

The ruling is tied to its facts. The Supreme Court let the State withdraw the remaining cases against sitting and former legislators because the incidents arose during the Covid-19 pandemic, none disclosed a grave or heinous offence, and there was no sign of hardened or repeat offending (para 6). It also weighed the burden such cases place on courts with serious matters pending (para 7). The High Court's leave, required since Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, remains the gateway for any such withdrawal (para 3); this order shows the kind of record that can justify it. A State applying in other cases would do well to set out these features case by case.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.