The Karnataka High Court last month refused to set aside a special NIA court order, which had declined to discharge 14 accused in the 2020 KG Halli-DJ Halli riots case, saying that the petitioners had not “made out any rarest of rare case” for the court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. Article 226 authorises high courts to issue certain writs.
The order was passed on April 29 by a division bench of Justices Sreenivas Harish Kumar and K S Hemalekha and was made public this week.
The accused had approached the high court with a petition against a special NIA court order that declined to discharge them for alleged offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
According to the prosecution in this case, in August 2020, a group of up to 30 people had gathered at the KG Halli police station in Bengaluru, demanding the arrest of a person who had allegedly posted derogatory comments against a community. After the complaint was accepted, the protestors allegedly turned violent, following which the police had to resort to a lathi charge and later firing.
While the police had originally registered a case under Indian Penal Code sections related to property damage, the NIA later registered a case under the UAPA with regard to terrorism and conspiracy.
The accused petitioners had originally approached the NIA court for discharge, citing a lack of evidence. The NIA counsel argued before the Karnataka High Court that the rejection of the discharge petition was part of the trial process and not barred by the NIA Act, while the petition before the Karnataka HC was not maintainable as the accused had the opportunity to appeal the order. It was stated that the high court jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution should only be invoked in the rarest cases involving error of jurisdiction or failure to appreciate a matter.
The counsel for the accused argued that the high court could still entertain the writ petition due to extraordinary circumstances where there was no prima facie evidence against the petitioners and the trial would be an abuse of process of law if continued.
Story continues below this ad
The high court opined that while considering the discharge case, the special NIA court had to weigh evidence only for the purpose of ascertaining whether a charge was made out or not, instead of a “roving inquiry”.
The court, while dismissing the petition, stated, “Courts have to interfere in exceptional cases in which there is likelihood of serious prejudice on the rights of the citizen when the contents of complaint or material on record is a brazen attempt to prosecute an innocent person….The petitioners has not made out any rarest of rare case for this court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution and the writ petition is not maintainable against an order rejecting a discharge application.”
