The Khurda district and sessions court rejected the criminal complaint against former chief minister Naveen Patnaik and former principal secretary V.K. Pandian due to lack of concrete evidence. The court noted that no RTI‑derived documents were submitted.

  • Complaint dismissed for lack of solid evidence
  • RTI material not presented in court
  • Procedural lapse under Section 173(4) of BNSS

On September 2, the Khurda district and sessions court threw out a criminal revision petition filed by social activist Sudhir Charan Mohanty, upholding the March 25 order of the Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM) in Bhubaneswar that had rejected the complaint against Naveen Patnaik and V.K. Pandian.

Judge Biranchi Narayan Mohanty, in a 14‑page judgment, observed that the petitioner failed to produce “a single scrap of paper or information” obtained via RTI from his witnesses, rendering it impossible to establish a cognizable offence or the involvement of the two officials.

Read Also:Violence Erupts in Raichur's Bichali Camp Over Religious Structures

The allegation claimed that during Patnaik’s tenure as chief minister, around 300 helicopter trips across Odisha cost over ₹500 crore, with expenses allegedly shouldered by mining owners, land mafias, contractors and other private sources. The court did not deem the alleged expenditure legitimate; it simply found the material insufficient to prove any crime.

Mohanty’s first FIR, dated August 14, 2024, questioned who funded the trips in the absence of government sanction. However, the sessions court identified inconsistencies between the FIR, a later report to the DCP, and the complaint, and noted that Mohanty had not complied with the mandatory procedure under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The court also pointed out that the offences alleged do not fall within the ambit of Section 33 of the BNSS, further weakening the legal basis of the complaint.

Why This Matters

BozokMedia analysis shows that the dismissal highlights systemic challenges in holding high‑ranking officials accountable when evidence is primarily based on RTI disclosures rather than hard documents.

Legal experts caution that mere allegations without documentary evidence rarely lead to convictions.
Did You Know?: Odisha has previously faced public scrutiny over helicopter expenses, yet no comprehensive audit report has ever been released.

Frequently Asked Questions

Will any criminal proceedings be initiated now? With the petition dismissed, further prosecution would require fresh, admissible evidence that meets procedural standards.

What was the actual cost of the helicopter trips? The complainant estimated the outlay at over ₹500 crore, but no official audit or verified figure has been made public.