Brinda Karat writes to President seeking intervention in Dadri lynching case

The Dadri lynching case, a deeply disturbing incident from 2015, continues to resonate in India's socio-political landscape, with recent developments concerning its prosecution bringing into sharp focus critical aspects of governance, rule of law, and constitutional propriety. CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat's letter to the President seeking intervention against the alleged withdrawal of prosecution by the Uttar Pradesh government, with the Governor's consent, highlights a potential subversion of the judicial process, making it a crucial topic for competitive exam aspirants.

**Background Context: The Dadri Lynching Incident**

On September 28, 2015, Mohammad Akhlaq, a 52-year-old man, was brutally lynched by a mob in Bisada village, Dadri, Uttar Pradesh, following rumors that his family had slaughtered a cow and stored beef in their refrigerator. His son, Danish, was also severely injured. Forensic reports later confirmed the meat was mutton, not beef. The incident sparked widespread outrage, debates on communal harmony, freedom of food choices, and the rise of vigilantism. The Uttar Pradesh Police subsequently filed an FIR and arrested several individuals. The case proceeded through the legal system, representing a critical test of India's commitment to justice for victims of communal violence.

**What Happened: The Allegation of Prosecution Withdrawal**

Brinda Karat's communication to the President of India on this matter is a significant development. She alleged that the Uttar Pradesh government, with the concurrence of the Governor, was attempting to withdraw the prosecution against the accused in the Dadri lynching case. Her primary contention is that such an action, if true, would not only undermine the pursuit of justice for the victim's family but also fundamentally 'subvert the entire judicial process.' This allegation raises serious questions about executive interference in judicial matters and the constitutional roles of high offices.

**Key Stakeholders Involved:**

1. **Brinda Karat (CPI(M) Leader):** As a prominent political figure and human rights activist, her role is to act as a watchdog, drawing attention to perceived injustices and holding governments accountable. Her appeal to the President signifies the gravity of the alleged executive action.

2. **President of India:** The Head of State and the constitutional guardian, the President (under Article 53) is expected to uphold the Constitution. While the President acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers (Article 74), an appeal for intervention in such a sensitive case calls for careful consideration, potentially leading to seeking information or advice.

3. **Uttar Pradesh Government (Executive):** The state government, headed by the Chief Minister, is responsible for law and order and the administration of justice within its jurisdiction. The alleged attempt to withdraw prosecution falls under its executive powers, typically exercised through public prosecutors, but requires judicial scrutiny.

4. **Governor of Uttar Pradesh:** The constitutional head of the state (Article 153), the Governor acts on the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers (Article 163). His alleged consent in withdrawing prosecution, if true, would mean he concurred with the state executive's decision. However, in specific discretionary matters, the Governor has a more independent role.

5. **The Judiciary:** The courts, from the trial court to the Supreme Court, are the ultimate arbiters of justice. Any attempt to withdraw prosecution under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) requires the consent of the court, which must satisfy itself that the withdrawal serves the interests of justice. The judiciary's role is crucial in preventing arbitrary executive actions.

6. **Victim's Family:** Mohammad Akhlaq's family represents the direct stakeholders seeking justice and closure for the brutal loss they suffered.

**Why This Matters for India:**

This issue profoundly impacts several critical aspects of Indian governance and society. Firstly, it strikes at the heart of the **Rule of Law**. If the executive can arbitrarily withdraw prosecution in heinous crimes, it erodes public trust in the justice system and may lead to a perception of impunity for perpetrators, especially in communally charged cases. Secondly, it highlights the delicate balance of **Separation of Powers** between the executive and the judiciary. While the executive initiates prosecution, its withdrawal must be subject to rigorous judicial oversight to prevent political interference. Thirdly, it underscores concerns about **Communal Harmony** and **Social Justice**. Cases like Dadri have deep implications for India's secular fabric. Any perceived failure to deliver justice in such instances can exacerbate communal tensions and deepen societal divisions. Lastly, it brings into focus the constitutional roles of the **President and Governor**, and the conventions surrounding executive actions, particularly when allegations of subverting judicial processes are made.

**Historical Context and Constitutional Provisions:**

The power to withdraw from prosecution is enshrined in **Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973**. This section allows the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, with the consent of the court, to withdraw from the prosecution of any person at any stage before the judgment is pronounced. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the court's consent is not a mere formality; the court must apply its mind to determine if the withdrawal is in the interest of public justice, not merely to fulfill executive dictates (e.g., *Rajender Kumar Jain v. State through Special Police Establishment, 1980*). Executive interference in the functioning of public prosecutors has been a recurring concern, often raising questions about the independence of the prosecution machinery. The roles of the President (Articles 53, 74) and Governor (Articles 153, 163) are primarily executive, but they also have a constitutional duty to uphold the rule of law. While they possess pardoning powers (Articles 72 and 161, respectively), withdrawing prosecution is a distinct legal process.

**Future Implications:**

Should the Uttar Pradesh government proceed with withdrawing prosecution, and if the court assents, it could set a dangerous precedent, signaling a weakening of the state's resolve in pursuing justice in communally sensitive cases. This could embolden extremist elements and further erode faith in the justice system. Conversely, if the judiciary rejects the withdrawal, it would reaffirm its role as a guardian of justice and the Constitution. The issue could also lead to further legal challenges in higher courts by activists or the victim's family, intensifying scrutiny on the state government's actions. Politically, it would continue to fuel debates on governance, accountability, and the handling of communal incidents by ruling parties, impacting public perception and electoral dynamics. Ultimately, the resolution of this matter will be a crucial indicator of the robustness of India's democratic institutions and its commitment to justice and the rule of law.