Congress Questions Police Silence and Government Accountability in Ankita Bhandari Murder Case
In a sharp escalation of criticism over the alleged mishandling of the Ankita Bhandari murder investigation, the Uttarakhand Congress has demanded clear and public answers from the police, questioning what it calls “silence, selective action, and political shielding” in the case.
A delegation led by Pradesh Congress Committee (PCC) president Ganesh Godiyal met Additional Director General (Law & Order) V. Murugeshan on Tuesday, submitting a detailed memorandum that raises uncomfortable questions for both the State police and the government.
At the centre of the Congress’s allegation is a recently surfaced audio clip reportedly released by the “wife” of a former BJP MLA in which the former legislator is allegedly heard naming Dushyant Kumar Gautam alias Gattu as the “VIP” linked to the case. Congress leaders say the police must break their silence on whether this audio has been verified or brushed aside to protect powerful interests.
Godiyal questioned the bulldozer action at Vanantra Resort carried out immediately after the murder came to light demanding clarity on who ordered the demolition, whether the bulldozer operator’s testimony was ever recorded by the SIT, and whether the act was used as a political spectacle. The PCC chief alleged that the Chief Minister “attempted to claim credit for an action that potentially destroyed evidence”, a charge the police have skirted so far.
He further sought answers on whether investigators fully examined the WhatsApp chats in which Ankita reportedly mentioned being pressured to provide “special services” to a VIP, a key lead Congress claims has been underplayed from the very beginning.
The memorandum also asks whether the role of BJP MLA Renu Bisht in the demolition of Ankita’s room was ever seriously scrutinized. Equally troubling, Congress said, is the claim made by Ankita’s father that a Patwari allegedly threatened him when he first tried to report his daughter missing, a serious accusation that calls into question the attitude of local administration from day one.
While the police have repeatedly appealed for anyone with evidence to come forward, Congress argues that the appeal itself raises suspicion: “Why should the public be expected to safeguard evidence when the State machinery appears reluctant to investigate its own?”
Godiyal asserted that key questions remain unanswered, and that both the investigation agency and the government are accountable for the vacuum of transparency.
Until those answers are provided, he said, the public will continue to see this case as a reflection of administrative indifference and political protectionism not justice.
