Bhubaneswar, Sept. 26: The political temperature in Odisha has shot up after law minister Prithiviraj Harichandan’s announcement that the Mohan Majhi government will reopen a string of high-profile criminal cases from the Naveen Patnaik years. The disclosure, made in the Assembly, has not only unsettled the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) but also altered the state’s political narrative ahead of the Nuapada by-election and the panchayat polls.

For the ruling BJP, the move is more than a judicial exercise—it is a carefully calibrated political manoeuvre. By revisiting cases such as the Itishree Pradhan murder in Rayagada, the Kunduli minor girl case, and the Mamita Meher killing in Kalahandi, the party is reviving painful episodes that had once rocked the state’s conscience but gradually faded from public debate.

Analysts argue this is a classic example of political memory being weaponised.

“Reopening such cases ensures the BJP reminds voters of the past failings of the BJD government, while positioning itself as the torchbearer of justice,” says a political observer in Bhubaneswar.

Harichandan’s speech in the House had the tenor of a charge sheet. He listed cases that once dominated Odisha’s headlines but ended without closure:

ACF Soumyaranjan Mohapatra’s suspicious death in Paralakhemundi.

Anapurna Rout’s mysterious demise, linked to her husband, police officer Deepak Rout.

The Mamita Meher murder, with allegations of complicity against a ruling party minister.

The Mahanga double murder, which had political overtones.

The shocking assassination of Health Minister Naba Kishore Das, where his family now alleges coercion under the BJD government.

By reopening these files, the BJP seeks to underline a single theme: that justice was compromised under political pressure in the Naveen era.

The BJD, which had dominated Odisha politics for over two decades, suddenly finds itself in the dock. With elections looming, the party is being forced into a defensive crouch. Any strong rebuttal risks appearing insensitive to victims’ families, while silence could be interpreted as tacit admission of guilt.

Adding to the discomfort, the Assembly session itself ended prematurely—adjourned sine die after seven turbulent days—largely consumed by noisy exchanges between the BJD and the BJP.

For the BJP, the gambit has twin benefits:

1. It highlights the alleged failures of the previous regime, eroding BJD’s moral standing.

2. It positions the Majhi government as pro-justice and unafraid to confront uncomfortable truths.

For the BJD, however, the challenge is to prevent this issue from snowballing into a referendum on its two-decade rule. The party’s immediate task will be to counter the narrative without appearing dismissive of the victims and their families.

As Odisha gears up for critical local polls, the battle lines are clear. If the BJP succeeds in keeping the “justice denied” debate alive, the BJD may find itself fighting not just the BJP, but also the ghosts of its own past.