By Satya Nayak
The Sudden U-Turn: ‘Justice’ or ‘Fixing’?
BHUBANESWAR: In the high-stakes theater of Odisha politics, a quiet withdrawal in the corridors of the High Court has sent shockwaves through the Congress corridors. The protagonist? Bhakta Charan Das, the President of the Odisha Pradesh Congress Committee (PCC).
While the state remains embroiled in controversies ranging from the SCB Medical fire to derogatory remarks against legendary leader Biju Patnaik, a separate “game” was being played behind the closed doors of the judiciary—one that has left Congress workers and political analysts alike questioning the “fixing” behind the scenes.
The Narla Petition: A Truth that Turned to Dust
The saga began following the 2024 Assembly elections. Bhakta Charan Das, having lost the Narla seat to BJD’s Manorama Mohanty, took a stand on “principle.” In July 2024, he filed an election petition in the High Court, alleging that Mohanty had secured her victory through a false affidavit.
Das claimed that Mohanty had lied about her educational qualifications, arguing that allowing such a candidate to sit in the “sacred house of democracy” was a threat to the interests of Odisha. For nearly a year, the battle raged. 32 court sessions were held, and as the case reached a decisive turn where a verdict was imminent, the unexpected happened.
The Sudden U-Turn: ‘Justice’ or ‘Fixing’?
On March 30, Bhakta Charan Das abruptly withdrew the case. However, the reasons provided for this retreat have only added fuel to the fire, as Das appears to be telling two different stories to two different audiences:
The ‘Conscience’ Narrative: To the media, Das portrayed himself as a champion of women. “Since she is a woman… providing ‘justice for women’ is also an action,” he claimed, suggesting that his conscience led him to drop the fight against a female opponent.
The ‘High Command’ Directive: Inside the courtroom, the story shifted. Das informed the judge that the Congress High Command (led by Mallikarjun Kharge) instructed him to “respect the mandate” of the people and withdraw the case.
The Satyapatha (Fact-Check): If “respecting the mandate” is a central Congress policy, why hasn’t it been applied to other leaders? In Balangir, Congress candidate Samarendra Mishra continues his legal battle against Kalikesh Singh Deo. Did the High Command only send a “special memo” to Bhakta Das?
A Pattern of Selective Silence
This courtroom maneuver is being viewed as part of a larger pattern of leadership that many labeled as “inconsistent.” Despite his self-proclaimed status as a “Messiah for the Downtrodden,” critics point to several instances where Das remained notably silent:
Dalit Humiliation: When Dalits in Ganjam were subjected to horrific treatment, Das failed to visit the region, even as AICC observers arrived from Delhi.
Tribal Rights: Once a vocal advocate for the Niyamgiri movement, he has remained tight-lipped regarding recent tribal arrests and the Vedanta controversy in his own home district.
Industrial Accountability: A committee formed by Das to report on pollution and displacement in industrial hubs like Jharsuguda and Angul has yet to produce a single report.
The Price of the Game
The withdrawal has not come without a cost—literally. The court imposed a ₹5,000 fine on Das for wasting judicial resources. Beyond the fine, the state has spent thousands on 32 sessions of court time, and the respondent, Manorama Mohanty, has likely spent upwards of ₹15–20 lakh on legal fees.
By withdrawing the case at the eleventh hour, Bhakta Das has effectively turned his “Path of Truth” into a “Path of Lies.” If the affidavit was indeed false, by dropping the case, he has allowed an allegedly unqualified candidate to remain in office—a move that many call a betrayal of the voters of Narla.
As the dust settles, the question remains: Who is Bhakta Charan Das really playing for? Congress workers are now looking toward New Delhi, waiting to see if Mallikarjun Kharge will confirm the “orders” that Das claims led to this controversial courtroom surrender.
