Supreme Court allows Himachal to withdraw COVID-era cases against MPs, MLAs
The court permitted withdrawal of prosecution in 63 criminal cases, noting no heinous offence or bodily injury.
3 reports on this incident · first at Sep 9, 2026, 10:37 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 9, 2026, 10:53 a.m. ET
Supreme Court allows Himachal to withdraw COVID-era cases against MPs, MLAs
The Supreme Court of India has allowed the State of Himachal Pradesh to withdraw prosecution in 63 criminal cases against MPs and MLAs related to COVID-19 era demonstrations, according to the New Indian Express.
The cases stemmed from violations of COVID-19 assembly bans during dharnas. The MPs and MLAs were charged under Section 269 (negligence to spread infection), Sections 504/506 (insult/intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, and the Disaster Management Act.
The court's order, reported by the New Indian Express, noted that the offences were not heinous and involved no bodily injury, permitting the withdrawal.
Sep 9, 2026, 10:37 a.m. ETFirst report
Supreme Court allows withdrawal of COVID-era cases against Himachal MPs and MLAs
The Supreme Court of India has allowed the State of Himachal Pradesh to withdraw prosecution in 63 criminal cases against Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly, according to a report by the New Indian Express. The cases stemmed from demonstrations held during the COVID-19 pandemic, when assembly bans were in force.
The charges included violations under Section 269 (negligence to spread infection), Sections 504/506 (insult/intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, and the Disaster Management Act. The court's order, reported by the New Indian Express, noted that the offences were not heinous and involved no bodily injury.
The development is part of an ongoing legal process; the court's decision allows the withdrawal of prosecution, but the matter remains subject to further legal proceedings.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 19 Sept 2026, 14:55current
First published.
- Version 19 Sept 2026, 14:37current
First published.
- Version 19 Sept 2026, 14:53current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.