Looking at the court rulings in the Umar Khalid case, it becomes clear that political and ideological motives lie behind such judicial non-cooperation, says activist Shivasundar.
Published Sep 08, 2025 | 4:08 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 08, 2025 | 4:08 PM
Gauri Laneksh was murdered outside her home in Bengaluru’s Rajarajeshwari Nagar on 5 September 2017.
Synopsis: It has been eight years since the killing of activist-journalist Gauri Lankesh. Yet the case has crawled forward at a snail’s pace. Between December 2023 and January 2025, bail was granted to all 17 accused, while the principal accused, Parashuram Waghmore and Manohar Yadav, were publicly honoured by Sangh Parivar activists. Activist Shivasundar and journalist-writer Rollo Roming have recently laid out the reasons behind this deliberate delay in justice. (This piece was originally published in Kannada on eedina.com)
Last Friday (5 September) marked eight years since the killing of fearless journalist, activist, and social worker Gauri Lankesh. Her courage continues to inspire activists and young journalists even now. But the inertia and failures of both Congress and BJP governments in Karnataka, together with judicial passivity, have resulted in extreme delays in investigating and prosecuting her case.
On 3 September, at an event organised by The News Minute in Bengaluru, activist Shivasundar and journalist-writer Rollo Romig explained the reasons behind the prolonged trial. They pointed out how successive governments over the past eight years have allowed the process to stall and evaded accountability.
“Many different influential forces are working to delay and derail the trial. The path they are following appears as if it is entirely legal. The government has tried to present itself as though it is not interfering in the trial. But, in fact, they do not need to interfere, rather, the trial is getting delayed. There should be an awareness that this delay is not right,” Romig said.
In December 2021, a chargesheet was submitted to the court. Eight months later, on 4 July 2022, the trial began. The Special Investigation Team led by BK Singh accused not only Gauri’s killers, but also 18 suspects alleged to have operated like a crime syndicate. Of these, seventeen were arrested, while one accused remains absconding.
Among the accused, Mohan Nayak claimed before the Karnataka High Court that he had no connection to the “organised crime charges”, arguing that he had never previously faced a chargesheet in any case. The High Court ruled in his favour.
“That High Court ruling could allow more accused to be released on bail. Granting bail would severely complicate the trial. There is a possibility that instead of being questioned together, the accused may be questioned separately. This will most likely cause the entire case to be delayed and weaken the grip on the investigation,” Romig wrote in 2022.
At the time of the ruling, the BJP was in power in Karnataka. The government had a 90-day window to file an appeal in the Supreme Court against the High Court judgment. But it did not do so.
It fell to Gauri’s sister, Kavitha Lankesh, to climb the steps of the Supreme Court herself. The apex court intervened, staying the High Court order and directing that proceedings continue.
“It was evident,” Romig observed, “that the High Court had clearly overstepped its bounds by quashing the chargesheet.”
In spite of this, between December 2023 and January 2025, bail was granted to all 17 arrested in the case. The 18th accused has still not been found.
Notably, in October 2024, the primary accused Parashuram Waghmore and Manohar Yadav were publicly honoured in Vijayapura by activists of the Sangh Parivar and the Sri Rama Sene. The alleged killers were celebrated.
“Slowing down the trial is part of the authoritarian playbook. They do not need to come out openly and suspend the investigation. They delay or conceal certain documents. It is difficult to explain such delays. But the result of such delay is seen in the crawling pace of the trial. Excessive delay can ultimately amount to justice not being delivered,” Romig noted during the recent discussion in Bengaluru.
After the chargesheet was filed, the trial was scheduled to begin on 6 December 2021. However, it was postponed and finally began six months later, on 4 July 2022. Who is responsible for this six-month delay? Neither the government nor the judiciary is likely to take responsibility.
Shivasundar argues that the delay was caused not only by the government’s negligence but also by judicial non-cooperation.
“When the BJP government was in power, between 2018 and 2022, the trial was deliberately delayed. But once the trial began, the full responsibility for the investigation and trial lies with the judiciary. However, judicial officers allotted only three to five days per month for hearings. Instead of conducting hearings in the Gauri case along with hundreds of other cases, a separate judge could have been appointed specifically for this trial. But that was never done at the time,” he noted.
“With the demand for a speedy trial and a special court, Kavitha Lankesh approached the state government. Her petition was forwarded by the government’s Law and Parliamentary Affairs Department to the judiciary. But the judiciary said: ‘It is not possible to conduct a speedy trial and constitute a special court.’ This is judicial non-cooperation.”
Shivasundar added: “Why this judicial non-cooperation? Looking at the court rulings in the Umar Khalid case, it becomes clear that there are political and ideological reasons behind such non-cooperation.”
The prosecution has argued that the 18 accused not only murdered Gauri Lankesh, but were also part of an organised crime syndicate as defined under the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act. It is working to prove this.
According to the chargesheet, the 18 accused had been planning the murder for more than a year, beginning in June 2016. Some of them allegedly met at a house in Belagavi to hatch the conspiracy.
Amol Kale, considered the main accused, is alleged to have played a central role in carrying out specific tasks: arranging motorcycles for the killers, finding Gauri’s office address, observing her daily routine, securing three rental houses in Bengaluru, organising weapons training and sharpshooting practice in Belagavi, purchasing live ammunition and weapons, as well as buying mobile phones and SIM cards.
For over a year, the accused are said to have travelled to several districts in Karnataka, including Belagavi, Davanagere, Dakshina Kannada, Vijayanagara, Bengaluru, Kodagu and Mandya, coordinating their plans and logistics.
Police have collected evidence from these locations: bullets from shooting practice sites, DNA samples from toothbrushes retrieved from the rented houses, and CCTV footage captured outside Gauri’s residence. The prosecution initially listed 530 witnesses, later dropping more than 100. Currently, 193 witness statements have been recorded in court, and around 80 are still pending.
Of those who have testified, most are “private witnesses”: landlords who rented properties to the accused, and others listed as mahazar witnesses (individuals present during police search and seizure operations, documented for verification). Presently, three witnesses have recorded statements against the prosecution’s case, favouring the accused.
It is also alleged that police registered a false case against a witness from Kodagu who testified about accused Rajesh Bangera’s involvement.
Bangera, along with Bharat Kurane, allegedly bought live bullets for weapons training. Bangera was reportedly a trainer with Amit Dighvekar and is said to have personally trained Ganesh Miskin, who rode the bike with Parashuram Waghmore, the shooter.
Forensic experts who analysed medical evidence such as DNA have already testified. However, key experts who analysed scientific evidence such as CCTV footage and ballistics have not yet deposed, and summons have not been issued for them so far.
In June 2025, a witness reported to the court that he had received threats, but, as pointed out by Shivasundar, police have yet to file any FIR in response.
(This piece was originally published in Kannada on eedina.com and has been reproduced with permission. Translated and edited by Dese Gowda)
