In a significant legal development, the Rajasthan High Court has given its formal consent to the state government to withdraw criminal cases against two prominent political figures. The court's approval is a crucial step required by the Supreme Court for such actions involving legislators.
Court's Decision and Legal Mandate
Justice Anoop Dhand of the Rajasthan High Court delivered the verdict on Thursday, accepting the state government's petition. This judicial nod was necessary as per a Supreme Court directive which mandates that any move to withdraw criminal cases against sitting or former Members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies must receive the high court's sanction.
The state government had approached the court seeking formal approval for its decision, which was initially taken in July 2024. With the high court's acceptance, the formal process of withdrawing the cases can now begin in the respective trial courts where they are being heard.
Details of the Cases and Government's Stance
The cases in question trace back to the year 2021. Two separate cases were registered against School Education Minister Madan Dilawar at the Ramganj Mandi police station. Another case was filed against former BJP MLA Bhawani Singh Rajawat at the Sultanpur police station in Kota district.
Representing the state, Additional Advocate General Rajesh Chaudhary presented the government's reasoning. He argued that the charges against both leaders stemmed from their participation in agitations deemed to be in the public interest, not for personal benefit.
Nature of the Alleged Offences
The charges against Minister Madan Dilawar are connected to his leadership of a protest march during the Covid-19 pandemic. The prosecution alleged that this march violated Covid restrictions and the Rajasthan Epidemic Act, 2020. Notably, the protest was organized to demand the arrest of individuals accused of assaulting and killing RSS workers.
In the case of former MLA Bhawani Singh Rajawat, the charges were filed for blocking a highway in Sultanpur. This act was part of a protest he was leading to advocate for water supply for farmers in the region.
The state government's position, as articulated by Chaudhary, is that the actions of both politicians were exercises of their social and moral responsibilities. The government concluded that it was just and appropriate to withdraw the cases, viewing the acts as performed in the larger public interest.
Implications and Next Steps
The High Court's permission effectively endorses the state government's view and sets a legal precedent for similar situations. It clears the path for the trial courts to officially close these cases, bringing a legal resolution to matters that have been pending for over three years.
This decision highlights the ongoing legal and political discourse surrounding protests, public interest, and the accountability of elected representatives. It underscores the balance the judiciary seeks between legal procedures and considerations of intent behind actions taken by public figures.
