Why is the IPS Association silent on the Anjana Krishna episode? | Capital Beat

In this episode of Capital Beat, panelists Vivek Deshpande, Yashovardhan Jha Azad, and Amitabh Thakur discussed the controversy around Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar’s phone call to IPS officer Anjana Krishna during action against alleged illegal sand mining in Solapur, and the subsequent letter by NCP MLC Amol Mitkari seeking verification of her UPSC records.

The discussion focused on the sequence of events captured on video, the state of illegal mining enforcement, and the response of services associations and political leadership. The panelists also addressed potential implications for the officer and the system.

Also read | Ajit Pawar 'rebukes' woman IPS officer in viral video; NCP reacts

Azad described the episode as a test for institutional integrity and police independence. Thakur evaluated likely administrative outcomes and costs borne by upright officers. Deshpande outlined political linkages around sand and murum mining and analysed the public reaction to the video.

Shooting the messenger

The panel noted that after Pawar’s phone call episode went viral, MLC Amol Mitkari wrote to the UPSC Secretary seeking “scrutiny and verification” of Anjana Krishna’s documents. The letter drew parallels with former IAS probationer Pooja Khedkar and asked for an in-depth probe into Krishna’s credentials.

Azad described such steps as diversionary: “This is killing the messenger… try and break her credentials.” He added that Krishna had already qualified through the commission and had been allotted a cadre.

Azad stated that video-recorded pressure on a field officer amounted to interference with lawful duty, saying, “A case should be registered,” and calling for accountability. He said the apology in circulation was not direct enough in acknowledging the officer’s lawful action.

IPS Association’s silence

Azad highlighted the muted response from serving officers, noting institutional hesitation: “The IPS Association… are extremely afraid to bring up even real issues.” He suggested that associations led by retired officers may be able to speak more openly in similar crises.

He emphasised that young officers are trained to uphold the Constitution and public interest: "They are not servants of the government… their duty is to the Constitution and to the people." He urged top leadership to protect officers discharging their duties lawfully.

Azad appealed for swift, high-level attention, calling the matter “an issue for the whole democracy” involving “unbridled power” and “illegal orders”. He said “the law should take its own course” and urged action to restore confidence.

Video-triggered escalation

The discussion recapped that Krishna, serving as a Sub-Divisional Police Officer, visited Kurdu village in Solapur following complaints of illegal murum excavation. A local NCP leader, Baba Jagtap, called Ajit Pawar from the site and handed the phone to Krishna.

Also read | Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri makes his X account private amid trolling after ceasefire

Krishna asked the caller to contact her on her official number, noting she could not confirm the caller’s identity. The panel noted that Pawar later made a video call and reportedly instructed her to stop the action. The officer explained she had not realised who was on the line.

The transcript recounted remarks attributed to Pawar during the call, including a warning of action and instructions to connect via WhatsApp. The sequence, captured and circulated, catalysed public debate and triggered the MLC’s letter to UPSC.

Mining nexus and political stakes

Deshpande characterised illegal sand and murum mining as a long-running, multi-district problem: “Politicians do have a lot of stake in sand and murum mining… it goes on illegally without any obstruction.” He said parties across the spectrum are linked at local levels.

He pointed to how local leaders can directly access senior political figures when enforcement begins: “Here is some leader… who had the gumption to directly call the deputy chief minister.” He said the video shows pressure on an officer acting on complaints.

He said the phone escalation suggested irregularity at the site: “If there was nothing illegal… they would have shown the officer their credentials.” He argued that the episode has highlighted the need to insulate mining enforcement from political interference.

Public reaction, political messaging

Deshpande contrasted statements made after the incident with actions by party functionaries: “Ajit Pawar says something else and his MLC takes a different position.” He said social media visibility would constrain future attempts at pressure.

He added that the incident has refocused attention on natural resource exploitation, saying, “This has flagged a very important issue of illegal sand and murum mining.” He noted that a similar culture has surfaced in other episodes involving public officials.

He underlined the wider pattern of field-level intimidation clips going viral, arguing that visibility has become a deterrent in itself. He said further repercussions for those who recorded the video could not be ruled out in such circumstances.

Systemic costs for upright officers

Amitabh Thakur assessed likely administrative trajectories. He said the episode was “a run of the mill affair… all the players would like to forget it”, and that the young officer would have limited options but to move on as the matter cools.

He cautioned that upright officers face consequences: “Honesty does have a price in bureaucracy.” He added, “Anyone who proves to be inconvenient… is bound to have his or her own repercussions.” He cited past instances where officers paid professional costs.

On the UPSC letter, Thakur said it would “end in anonymity”, calling it “a wild threat and nothing more” unless wrongdoing were proven. He said the episode’s key value was that it brought regular but opaque pressures into full public view.

Not a new phenomenon

Thakur disagreed with the suggestion that this was a new phenomenon, arguing “this has been happening for a long time” and that “many IAS and many IPS officers are themselves responsible” for systemic decline. He said officers’ own interests often shape outcomes.

He noted that service associations’ effectiveness has eroded over time, and that the wider environment discourages sustained resistance. He called the present case an exception because it was documented and widely shared.

Thakur concluded that further pressure could arise if similar confrontations recur, stating, “If the lady is adamant and if something happens again, then certainly she will have to face the price.”

Expectations from govts

Azad urged the Maharashtra chief minister, who oversees the Home Department, to ensure protection for officers enforcing the law. He called on the Union home minister to safeguard the all-India character of the service and its functional independence across states.

Also read | My advice to Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri: Don’t ignore the trolls

He said the episode has a bearing on federal ideals and training imparted to young officers, urging a strong message that illegal orders would not be tolerated. He described the case as “a question of ultimately survival of our democracy.”

Deshpande predicted practical constraints on punitive action given public scrutiny. He said the circulation of the video and the intensity of the response would likely prevent retaliatory steps against the officer and make future interventions more cautious.

What the episode reveals

Across the discussion, the panel underscored the significance of the on-record exchange between a senior politician and a field officer during an enforcement action. It highlighted the use of a letter to challenge the officer’s credentials after the exchange went public.

The episode, the panelists noted, has renewed debate on political interference in local resource extraction, the role and voice of services associations, and the extent to which public visibility shields officers on the ground.

The panel also underscored that the incident placed systemic checks and balances under an unusual glare, with calls for institutional backing for lawful enforcement and for insulating field decisions from ad hoc political pressure.

(The content above has been transcribed from video using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.)