High Courts Clamp Down on Selective Prosecution: COVID‑19 FIR Quashed and KPSC Recruitment Probe Ordered

The Allahabad High Court on 18 September 2026 set aside a criminal case against two men accused of attending a religious gathering during the pandemic, holding that the FIR rested on “presumption and assumption”. A day later, the Karnataka High Court directed a court‑monitored Special Investigation Team to probe alleged irregularities in Karnataka State Public Service Commission (KPSC) recruitments, citing a “troubled history” of nepotism and fraud. Both judgments spotlight the judiciary’s role in policing selective prosecution and upholding constitutional equality.

Constitutional Guardrails Against Arbitrary Prosecution

India’s Constitution enshrines equality before the law (Article 14) and the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21). The Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted these provisions to bar prosecutions that are motivated by bias or that target a particular group while ignoring similarly situated persons.

• ▸Article 14 mandates equal protection of the laws.
• ▸Article 21 requires that deprivation of liberty follow a fair, just, and reasonable procedure.
• ▸Section 482 of the CrPC empowers High Courts to quash proceedings that are an abuse of process.

When a prosecution appears to be driven by extraneous considerations—political, communal, or personal—the courts may invoke these safeguards to prevent the machinery of law from becoming a tool of oppression.

COVID‑19 FIR Quashed: Applying the “Presumption” Test

In the Allahabad case, the FIR was filed under the Disaster Management Act 2005 and the Epidemic Diseases Act 1897, alleging that the accused could have spread coronavirus after attending the Nizamuddin Markaz. The petitioners proved negative test results and highlighted procedural lapses in the investigation. Justice Gautam Chowdhary concluded that continuing the case would amount to an “abuse of process of court as well as process of law”.

• ▸The FIR cited attempt to murder alongside pandemic‑related offences.
• ▸The accused were quarantined but later tested negative for COVID‑19.
• ▸The court noted the State “did not dispute the facts presented by the applicants”.

By invoking Section 482, the bench emphasized that prosecution cannot be predicated on conjecture; the law must rest on concrete evidence, lest it erode the guarantee of equality under Article 14.

KPSC Recruitment Probe: Judicial Oversight of Administrative Bias

The Karnataka High Court, responding to petitions by an MLA and a student association, ordered a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by Director‑General of Police Alok Kumar to investigate alleged large‑scale irregularities in KPSC selections. The court stressed that the commission’s past scandals—tampered OMR sheets, nepotistic appointments, and alleged answer‑key leaks—constitute a pattern of bias that threatens merit‑based recruitment.

• ▸The SIT was given 100 days to submit its final report, with 30‑day progress updates.
• ▸The court directed cooperation with the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
• ▸The judgment quoted that “when a post is sold… merit is not merely defeated; it is betrayed”.

By treating the recruitment process as a matter of public trust, the court applied the reasonable apprehension of bias standard, echoing the Supreme Court’s reasoning in State of Bihar (2015) 9 SCC 1, where selective prosecution of a political activist was struck down.

Statutory Blueprint for Detecting Selective Prosecution

The Law Commission Report No. 241 (2015) proposes a three‑pronged test to assess selective prosecution: statistical parity across comparable cases, disclosure of the decision‑making matrix, and judicial review of the investigative process. Although not yet codified, the test has informed recent High Court pronouncements.

• ▸Statistical analysis: courts may require data on how many similar cases were prosecuted.
• ▸Decision‑making matrix: agencies must reveal criteria used to select cases.
• ▸Judicial review: Section 197 of the CrPC allows stays where “reasonable apprehension of bias” is shown.

Both the Allahabad and Karnataka judgments implicitly employed these criteria, demanding transparency and parity before allowing criminal proceedings to proceed.

Implications for Democratic Accountability

These rulings reinforce the principle that the state cannot weaponise criminal law to achieve extrajudicial ends. By curbing prosecutions based on mere suspicion—whether pandemic‑related or rooted in recruitment politics—the judiciary safeguards the constitutional promise of equal justice. Moreover, the orders compel investigative agencies to adopt forensic, cyber, and financial expertise, ensuring that future inquiries are evidence‑driven rather than assumption‑driven.

• ▸The Allahabad decision deters pre‑emptive prosecutions during public health emergencies.
• ▸The Karnataka SIT’s mandate sets a precedent for court‑monitored investigations in administrative scandals.
• ▸Both cases underscore the interplay between constitutional rights and procedural safeguards.

As the courts continue to scrutinise the motives behind prosecutions, the balance of power tilts towards a more accountable state apparatus, reaffirming that no individual or institution stands above the law.