The Uttar Pradesh Criminal Law (Composition of Offences and Abatement of Trials) (Amendment) Bill, 2017 was introduced to address non-serious cases, many of which were driven by political vendetta-primarily related to protests, demonstrations, and minor breaches of public order.
Over the past nine years, Yogi Adityanath’s government has undertaken numerous developmental initiatives across the state—ranging from expressways, industrial growth to major societal projects, transforming the state of Uttar Pradesh. Yet, the criticism from Harsh Mandar rarely moves beyond a narrow fixation on Yogi’s saffron robes, affiliation with Hindutva and the cultural symbolism.
In a recent article, Harsh Mander criticises the Uttar Pradesh government for seeking to withdraw nearly 20,000 criminal cases. He portrays this as an act of granting “immunity” to the Chief Minister. The Uttar Pradesh Criminal Law (Composition of Offences and Abatement of Trials) (Amendment) Bill, 2017 was introduced to address non-serious cases, many of which were driven by political vendetta-primarily related to protests, demonstrations, and minor breaches of public order. The Bill was passed by the state assembly with broad consensus; the Samajwadi Party and other opposition parties raised no significant objections during the proceedings. As per multiple credible news reports from that period, the legislation moved forward with minimal resistance in the House.
The Withdrawal is of the 1995 Case, Not the 2007 Hate Speech Case
Mander specifically references a case against the Chief Minister related to a 2007 speech in Gorakhpur. However, the fact is that just before the Bill was tabled, the government ordered the withdrawal of a 1995 case registered at Pipiganj police station in Gorakhpur for violating prohibitory orders under Section 144 (equivalent to BNSS Section 163). This was a minor matter involving a public meeting attended by about five people in violation of orders. The 2007 “hate speech” case was not included in this bill.
Court Validation in the 2007 Hate Speech Matter
The state government refused to grant sanction for prosecution in the 2007 case. In February 2018, the Allahabad High Court upheld this decision, noting no procedural irregularities in the investigation or the closure report. In August 2022, the Supreme Court-on a bench headed by then Chief Justice N.V. Ramana-dismissed the petition challenging the High Court’s order and declined to interfere.
Mander highlights social media memes such as ’Yogi spares Yogi’ and used these false ‘toxic campaigns’ to level allegations against a popularly elected Chief Minister.
Trusting and Quoting Partisan Sources and Ideological Bias
Mander accusations also lean heavily on writings by left-leaning journalist Dhirendra Jha, who is known for his consistent opposition to nationalist viewpoints. Jha’s references to Gorakhnath Math and related institutions similarly reflect a long-standing left-wing prejudice against anything associated with Hindutva. This is the same ideological lens that has opposed the Ram Temple for decades, showed sympathy for Naxalism, and routinely criticised institutions like Gita Press simply because of their cultural roots. While Naxalism has been significantly curtailed across the country, voices like Mander’s often remain anchored in those outdated positions.
The 2002 Mohan Mundera Incident
Regarding the 2002 Mohan Mundera incident, which Mander links to the formation of Hindu Yuva Vahini, there were no proven charges against Yogi Adityanath. The case was closed after the police investigation found insufficient evidence, a decision accepted by the courts.
Allegations of Forced Conversions in 2015
Mander’s reference to alleged forced conversions in 2015 is also coloured by prejudice. Police investigations in such cases did not uncover concrete evidence of coercion; individuals involved described the changes as voluntary.
The Akhlaq (Dadri) Lynching Case
In the Mohammad Akhlaq (Dadri lynching) case, the Uttar Pradesh government cited inconsistencies in the statements of the victim’s family members (wife Ikraman, son Danish, and daughter) regarding the number and names of the accused. Initial statements differed from later ones, and no prior enmity between the parties was recorded. The government described this as a case of weak evidence. In December 2025, the trial court rejected the state’s application to withdraw the case and ordered the trial to continue. The government is honouring the court’s decision.
Omission of the Government’s Development Record
The most telling sign of Mander’s one-sided approach is his complete silence on the development record of the Yogi government over nine years. Just days before this critique (in the context of the original writing), the ambitious and one of Asia’s largest, Noida International Airport at Jewar, was inaugurated on 28 March 2026. The government has also delivered extensive infrastructure-expressways, industrial investments, improved law and order, and launched numerous welfare schemes – yet none of these find any mention in Mander’s piece. He focuses exclusively on selective, often distorted or prejudicial narratives.
Yogi Adityanath’s administration has placed Uttar Pradesh firmly on the path of growth and stability. Ignoring this progress only highlights the limitations of the Madar’s own vision. Fact-based debate is always welcome in a democracy, but a discourse built on half-truths, selective omission, and preconceived bias does serve public interest. Uttar Pradesh is moving forward.
(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author’s own and do not reflect those of DNA)
(Amitabh Satyam, an alumnus of IIT Kanpur, has earned his MBA from Fisher College of Business in the USA. He has worked in the United States at Shearson Lehman Brothers and CableVision, and has served in senior leadership positions in India at IBM, Reliance, SAP, and Siemens.)
