The Uttar Pradesh government's recent attempt to withdraw from the prosecution in the Mohammed Akhlaq lynching case has sparked intense legal and political debate. This move, seen by many as an effort to transform a moment of national trauma into a disposable case, raises fundamental questions about the use of legal provisions for political ends.
From Legal Tool to Political Lever
The legal provision in question, known as nolle prosequi, originated as a practical instrument for prosecutors. It was designed to allow them to step back from cases when evidence weakened or when continuing prosecution no longer served the cause of justice. This concept, which became Section 321 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, has now been incorporated as Section 360 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
However, what began as a safeguard has gradually transformed into what critics call a political escape hatch. The provision has drifted from its original purpose, becoming a convenient lever for those in power to manipulate legal outcomes according to political considerations rather than judicial merit.
The Legal Framework and Its Safeguards
On paper, the rules governing case withdrawals remain strict and well-defined. Only the public prosecutor can formally seek withdrawal, and such action can only be justified when genuine public interest demands it. Indian courts have repeatedly emphasized that governments cannot simply command prosecutors to withdraw cases.
The judiciary has maintained that prosecutors must exercise independent judgment, while judges have the responsibility to examine every withdrawal request with meticulous care. Parliament has further strengthened these protections by mandating that victims must be heard before any withdrawal is permitted, ensuring that affected parties have a voice in the process.
Broader Implications for Justice
The Uttar Pradesh government's move in the Mohammed Akhlaq case, dated November 27, 2025, represents a critical test case for how these legal provisions are applied in practice. Legal experts like Sanjay Hegde have highlighted the dangerous precedent such actions could set if allowed to proceed without rigorous judicial scrutiny.
When legal mechanisms designed to protect justice become instruments for political convenience, the very foundation of the judicial system faces erosion. The ongoing scrutiny of this case withdrawal will determine whether the courts can maintain the integrity of legal processes against increasing political pressures.
