Lucknow, Oct 15, 2025: Samajwadi Party (SP) president Akhilesh Yadav on Wednesday strongly criticised the Uttar Pradesh government over recently released data on police encounters, alleging that the figures were being manipulated to create a misleading impression about law and order in the state. Addressing a press conference at the SP headquarters in Lucknow, Yadav accused the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led administration of using encounter statistics as a political tool rather than a measure of public safety.

Encounter Figures Under Fire

The UP government had recently released figures claiming that over the past 8.5 years, police had killed 256 hardened criminals in a total of 15,726 encounters. According to the data, 31,960 criminals were arrested, 10,324 were injured, while 18 police personnel lost their lives and 1,754 were injured during the operations. While these numbers were touted by the government as a sign of its success in tackling crime, Yadav dismissed them as misleading.

“The BJP government only wants to create a perception that encounters have improved law and order,” Yadav said. “If that were true, why haven’t heinous crimes stopped in the state yet? Why don’t bulldozers run on Akhilesh Dubey’s assets? Why has no encounter been carried out in that case? These encounter figures are meant to scare people. Nothing more. Many innocent people have been killed, and even police personnel have been jailed in several cases.”

Yadav’s remarks highlight his criticism of the administration’s reliance on selective statistics to present a curated narrative of governance. He questioned the credibility of the encounter claims and suggested that such figures are politically motivated rather than reflective of actual improvements in law and order.

Criticism of Other Government Initiatives

The SP chief also targeted the UP government on multiple fronts, including environmental and economic initiatives. On the Gomti river cleaning project, Yadav alleged that the government’s sudden focus on riverfront development was primarily cosmetic and financially motivated.

“The government has suddenly remembered cleaning the Gomti now that its term is ending. When there is a genuine plan to clean rivers, the SP government’s earlier schemes to clean the Gomti and Varuna must be implemented,” he said. “This government is not cleaning the Gomti; it is cleaning out funds. They are building riverfronts on drains and planning how to loot public money.”

Yadav also commented on the rising gold prices, which were expected to hit ₹1.5 lakh per 10 grams ahead of the Diwali season. “With the marriage season approaching, how will poor families afford gold ornaments?” he questioned, linking economic concerns to the government’s handling of financial and commodity markets.

Further, he criticised the government’s promotion of Swadeshi initiatives, alleging that these campaigns were largely symbolic and aimed at diverting public attention from pressing issues like agriculture and public welfare. He also accused the administration of failing to ensure adequate fertiliser supplies to farmers, highlighting persistent agrarian challenges in the state.

Political Context and Election Strategy

Touching upon upcoming elections, Yadav assured that the SP remained in alliance with the Congress and would continue to coordinate strategically for teacher and graduate constituencies. He stressed that these were highly personal elections, requiring substantial grassroots work and community engagement.

“We are very much in alliance and we will further strengthen it. This is a very personal election which many teachers and other organisations contest. It requires a lot of hard work,” he said, signalling the SP’s continued focus on building alliances and consolidating its voter base ahead of electoral contests.

Law and Order in UP: A Broader Debate

Akhilesh Yadav’s comments come at a time when police encounters and law enforcement strategies are under national scrutiny. While the government has consistently cited encounters as evidence of its proactive approach to crime, opposition leaders argue that such statistics do not necessarily correlate with actual improvements in public safety or crime reduction.

Legal experts and human rights activists have often warned against using encounter data as a proxy for governance success, citing concerns over accountability, judicial oversight, and the protection of citizens’ rights. Yadav’s speech echoes these criticisms, emphasizing the human cost of encounters and the need for transparency in reporting and prosecuting both criminal and law enforcement actions.

Conclusion

The press conference at SP headquarters reaffirmed Akhilesh Yadav’s critical stance toward the BJP government in Uttar Pradesh, highlighting what he perceives as discrepancies between official narratives and ground realities. By questioning the authenticity of encounter figures and pointing to broader economic and social concerns, Yadav sought to challenge the perception of effective governance projected by the current administration.

As UP continues to navigate crime, governance, and election preparations, debates around law and order, encounter policies, and public perception are likely to remain central to political discourse. Yadav’s remarks underscore the ongoing contestation over how statistics, government initiatives, and media narratives shape public opinion in India’s largest state.