The police case in Solapur has once again placed Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar at the centre of political controversy. What began as an administrative action against illegal soil excavation has now spiraled into a full-blown political storm after visuals of Pawar’s sharp rebuke to IPS officer Anjana Krishna went viral. The optics of a senior leader seemingly intimidating a police officer have raised questions about political interference in law enforcement.
The officers involved in the operation were on the ground to curb illegal mineral excavation in Kurduvadi village, a practice that has long been a source of both ecological damage and local-level corruption. Their efforts were reportedly interrupted by local party workers aligned with Pawar, who allegedly obstructed the officials and created a hostile situation. The registration of an FIR underlines the seriousness of the offence, as obstructing government officials during duty is a punishable act.
Ajit Pawar’s remarks in the viral clip struck a particularly raw nerve. His words, “I will take action against you,” directed at the SDPO, were perceived by many as a threat rather than an attempt to calm tensions. Opposition leaders quickly seized on the moment, framing it as an example of how those in power misuse their influence to shield illegal activities and undermine the authority of honest officers.
The Deputy Chief Minister’s clarification has done little to ease the backlash. While Pawar insisted he was merely trying to de-escalate matters, the public release of the video has made it difficult to shake off the perception of intimidation. His allies within the party argue that his words were taken out of context, but critics maintain that the tone and choice of words reveal a deeper problem of political dominance over the administrative machinery.
For Ajit Pawar, the incident comes at a delicate time, with his leadership already under close watch following his split from the Sharad Pawar faction of the NCP. Opposition parties are expected to keep the controversy alive, portraying it as symbolic of the erosion of institutional independence under his watch. On the other hand, how law enforcement agencies handle the FIR and investigation will determine whether this episode is remembered as a momentary political squall or a significant dent in Pawar’s credibility.
The case also highlights a broader tension between politics and governance in Maharashtra. Instances where local leaders interfere in administrative work are not new, but the wide circulation of such videos has begun to shift public perception. Citizens are increasingly demanding greater accountability, not just from officers, but also from political leaders whose words and actions carry far-reaching consequences. This episode, therefore, is more than just about Ajit Pawar—it is a test of how much space the political class allows the rule of law to function independently.
