Samajwadi Party leaders escalated their criticism of the Uttar Pradesh administration on Tuesday, alleging a pattern of selective privilege in which individuals aligned with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party receive official protection and facilities, while dissenting voices face intimidation and violence. The opposition party framed the charge as a test of equal treatment under the law, targeting both the state government and Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.Senior figures from the Samajwadi Party said the state’s security apparatus was being deployed unevenly, asserting that those who “serve as slaves to the BJP” are rewarded with escorts, access and administrative leniency, while those who speak up on matters of faith, livelihoods and public interest are “humiliated and subjected to violence”. The party did not cite specific case files in its statement but pointed to a series of confrontations involving activists and local leaders to argue that the pattern is systemic rather than episodic.
Allegations of selective power and privilege were cast as the core grievance, with party leaders arguing that the distinction between protected insiders and targeted critics has widened under the present dispensation. They contended that police action is swift and visible when ruling-party interests are involved, but hesitant or punitive when complaints originate from opposition workers or community representatives. The party also accused officials of using preventive detentions and public-order provisions to deter protests, a claim the government has repeatedly rejected.
The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party responded by dismissing the accusations as politically motivated. Government spokespersons said the administration’s record on law and order shows impartial enforcement, arguing that security cover is assessed on threat perception rather than political affiliation. They maintained that Uttar Pradesh has seen improvements in policing outcomes, citing reductions in organised crime and faster responses to major incidents, and said opposition claims ignore the constraints of maintaining public order in a state of more than 200 million people.
The exchange comes amid heightened political mobilisation in the state, where issues of public safety, religious expression and administrative neutrality frequently intersect. Analysts note that Uttar Pradesh’s politics often amplify such debates, given the state’s size and its influence on national narratives. Opposition parties have increasingly framed their critique around civil liberties and equal protection, while the government has emphasised stability and enforcement as prerequisites for development.
Within the Samajwadi Party, leaders stressed that the concern extends beyond partisan rivalry to what they describe as a chilling effect on civic participation. They argued that uneven treatment discourages whistleblowing and peaceful assembly, particularly among marginalised groups. Party officials also questioned the optics of VIP security for private individuals perceived to be close to power, contrasting it with alleged lapses in protection for those reporting threats.
Government officials counter that VIP protocols are often misunderstood and that security decisions are reviewed periodically. They added that allegations of violence are investigated on their merits, with courts providing oversight. The administration has highlighted judicial scrutiny as evidence that institutional checks remain intact, noting that adverse rulings are complied with and appealed through legal channels rather than resisted.