Bhubaneswar court dismisses revision petition against Naveen Patnaik, VK Pandian
Synopsis
A Bhubaneswar sessions court has dismissed a criminal revision petition targeting former Odisha CM Naveen Patnaik and ex-bureaucrat VK Pandian over alleged misuse of public funds for helicopter trips. The judge found the petitioner lacked locus standi and had not complied with mandatory procedural requirements — shutting down this legal challenge at the district court level.
Key Takeaways
The Sessions Court of Khurda, Bhubaneswar dismissed the revision petition on 2 September .
The petition was filed by advocate Sudhir Charan Mohanty against former CM Naveen Patnaik and ex-bureaucrat VK Pandian .
Allegations centred on helicopter trips across Odisha districts allegedly funded by mining owners and unaccounted sources, per RTI data cited by the petitioner.
Sessions Judge Biranchi Narayan Mohanty found no illegality in the SDJM Court's order of 25 March 2026 .
The court ruled the petitioner lacked locus standi under Section 33 of BNSS, 2023 and had not complied with Section 173(4) of BNSS, 2023 .
The Sessions Court of Khurda, Bhubaneswar, on Wednesday, 2 September, dismissed a criminal revision petition filed against former Odisha Chief Minister and Leader of Opposition Naveen Patnaik and his close aide, former bureaucrat VK Pandian, over allegations of misappropriation or misutilisation of public funds. The court found no illegality in the lower court's earlier order rejecting the complaint.
Background of the Case
Advocate and social worker Sudhir Charan Mohanty of Bhubaneswar had filed the revision petition challenging an order dated 25 March 2026 by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM) Court, Bhubaneswar, which had dismissed his original complaint against Patnaik and Pandian.
Mohanty had initially lodged an FIR on 14 August 2024 at the Capital Police Station, Bhubaneswar, alleging that both Pandian and Patnaik had undertaken numerous helicopter trips across all districts of Odisha without government sanction or payment from the public exchequer.
Key Allegations and RTI Claims
Citing information obtained through the Right to Information (RTI) Act, Mohanty alleged that the expenses for these trips were borne by mining owners, land mafias, real estate operators, non-Odia contractors, and other sources of unaccounted money. He further alleged that the Inspector In-Charge of the Capital Police Station did not register the FIR until 19 August 2024 — five days after it was submitted.
Mohanty reportedly then submitted a written FIR before the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Bhubaneswar, which was acknowledged at the DCP's office. However, according to the petitioner, no FIR was registered against Patnaik or Pandian even after that submission.
Court's Ruling and Reasoning
Sessions Judge Biranchi Narayan Mohanty of the Khurda court upheld the SDJM's earlier dismissal, observing that the complainant had neither established a case under any of the penal sections cited, nor complied with mandatory procedural requirements.
The court stated: 'This Court is of the considered opinion that the complaint/petitioner neither made out any case under any of the penal sections referred to in the complaint petition with supported materials nor adhered to the mandatory compliance of Section 173(4) of BNSS, 2023 before presenting the complaint nor he had got any locus-standi to present the complaint in terms of Section 33 of BNSS, 2023.'
What This Means Going Forward
The dismissal closes this particular legal avenue against Patnaik and Pandian in the Khurda Sessions Court. Notably, this case is one of several legal and political challenges that have followed Pandian and Patnaik since the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) government's defeat in the 2024 Odisha Assembly elections. Whether Mohanty pursues further appeals before a higher court remains to be seen.
Point of View
Who became a lightning rod for political controversy during the BJD's final years in power. The RTI-based allegations about helicopter trips funded by mining interests were never tested on merit; they fell at the threshold of locus standi. That means the substantive questions about how those trips were financed remain unexamined by any court — a detail that opposition voices in Odisha are unlikely to let rest.
NationPress
2 Sept 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the revision petition against Naveen Patnaik and VK Pandian about?
The petition alleged that Naveen Patnaik and VK Pandian undertook helicopter trips across all districts of Odisha without government sanction, with expenses allegedly borne by mining owners and other unaccounted sources. The allegation was based on information obtained through RTI filings by the petitioner, advocate Sudhir Charan Mohanty.
Why did the Sessions Court dismiss the petition?
Sessions Judge Biranchi Narayan Mohanty found that the petitioner had not established a case under any of the cited penal sections, had not complied with Section 173(4) of BNSS, 2023, and lacked locus standi under Section 33 of BNSS, 2023. The court upheld the SDJM Court's earlier dismissal of the complaint dated 25 March 2026.
Who filed the complaint and when?
Advocate and social worker Sudhir Charan Mohanty of Bhubaneswar filed the original FIR on 14 August 2024 at the Capital Police Station, Bhubaneswar. After the FIR was not registered and subsequent complaints were dismissed, he moved the Sessions Court through a revision petition.
What happens next in this case?
The Sessions Court's dismissal closes this legal avenue at the district level. Mohanty may choose to approach a higher court, such as the Orissa High Court, though no such move has been announced as of the court's ruling on 2 September.
