BENGALURU: The Karnataka government’s recent decision to withdraw cases related to protests held during the COVID-19 pandemic has ignited a wave of controversy, sparking allegations of political bias and favouritism. The state cabinet’s move to drop charges against All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) leaders, including Zahiruddin Ansari, who led a ‘Hijab is our right’ rally in Aland, Kalaburagi district, has been met with significant backlash. These protests took place during the third wave of the pandemic, leading to legal action under the Epidemic Diseases Act.
On the other hand despite dropping charges against the AIMIM leaders, the state government refused to withdraw cases against Hindu students from Harihara, Davangere district. The students, including Dhanush and Maruthi, were accused of unlawful assembly, rioting, and forcibly removing hijabs from Muslim girls during an anti-hijab protest at a local college. Although a subcommittee recommended dropping these cases, the state cabinet’s decision to retain them has drawn sharp criticism, particularly from the Opposition BJP, who accuse the Congress government of political favoritism and appeasement.
BJP State President BY Vijayendra responded strongly to the decision, accusing Chief Minister Siddaramaiah of playing politics to divert attention from the MUDA land scam allegations. He stated, “The Congress is using appeasement politics as a tool to distract from more serious issues.” This decision has added to existing tensions, with many viewing it as an attempt to favor certain communities.
Senior BJP leader Ashwath Narayan also criticized the decision, stating that it reflects a clear bias. He said, “By selectively withdrawing cases, the government is openly favoring one community over others.” The BJP leaders, who organized protests at Freedom Park in Bengaluru, accused the Congress-led government of bending the rules and questioned their commitment to equal justice.
The Karnataka Cabinet also rejected requests to withdraw three cases against Union Minister V Somanna, which stemmed from his participation in Cauvery water protests. Despite considerable political support for dropping these charges, they remain active, prompting further discussions on what critics call a selective application of justice. The opposition has labeled this inconsistency as another example of how the state government is unfairly targeting certain individuals while protecting others.
The Karnataka government’s decision to selectively withdraw cases has stirred broader debates over alleged political bias and unequal treatment of protesters. BJP argue that the government’s actions appear to favor certain groups, suggesting that decisions on case withdrawals are based on political or religious affiliations rather than legal merits. This perception has been particularly pronounced in cases where the subcommittee had recommended dropping charges against Hindu students, yet the cabinet chose to retain them.
In response, supporters of the Congress government have defended the actions, asserting that each case was evaluated on its merits. They argue that decisions were based on the specific nature and severity of the charges, not on any political or communal considerations. According to them, cases that were dismissed lacked sufficient grounds, whereas others remained active due to the gravity of the allegations.
The contentious move has intensified the political climate in Karnataka, with Opposition BJP leaders actively staging protests and voicing their concerns. The BJP has accused the Congress government of undermining the principles of equal justice by catering to specific communities instead of applying legal standards uniformly across all groups.
Home Minister G Parameshwar, however, has defended the decision, stating, “The government has the right to review and withdraw cases if they are found to be unjust. Cases can be reconsidered and retracted based on existing rules, and it is not unusual for such reviews to occur.” He emphasized that cases with false accusations or lacking concrete evidence could be re-evaluated, although BJP see this as an attempt to shield political allies.
Union Minister Pralhad Joshi also weighed in on the issue, questioning the selective approach in withdrawing cases. Referring to the Hubli riot cases, he said, “Were those who pelted stones acting as patriots?” His pointed comments highlight the BJP’s stance that the Congress-led government is engaging in vote bank politics by selectively dropping charges.
The Karnataka government’s selective withdrawal of cases has raised important questions about how legal matters, particularly those related to protests, are handled. The accusations of selective justice have added to the scrutiny of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and his administration, with allegations that political agendas may be influencing decisions.
While the Congress Government maintains that their decisions are driven by the severity and specifics of the incidents, the BJP continues to challenge this view, framing it as an act of appeasement. As the political discourse in Karnataka becomes more heated, these debates on fairness, consistency, and the rule of law are likely to intensify, shaping the political narrative in the coming weeks.
