Zubeen Garg's Family Criticizes Political Exploitation of His Death

The family of late singer Zubeen Garg has condemned political parties for using his death for electoral gain. They urge respect for the judicial process, emphasizing that justice cannot be promised within a specific timeframe. Legal experts also stress the importance of allowing the judiciary to operate without political interference. This situation highlights the delicate balance between politics and justice in India, as the family calls for a focus on the legal proceedings rather than political maneuvering.

By Narendra Chaudhary Apr 4, 2026, 10:31 IST

Family of Zubeen Garg Responds to Political Promises

A file image of Zubeen Garg with his uncle Manoj Borthakur (Photo: Manoj Borthakur/meta)

Guwahati, April 4: The family of the late Zubeen Garg, a renowned singer and cultural figure, has voiced strong objections to the Congress party's manifesto, urging all political entities to refrain from politicizing the musician's untimely death.

In its manifesto for the upcoming State Assembly elections, Congress pledged to deliver justice for Zubeen within 100 days if they secure victory.

Manoj Borthakur, Zubeen's uncle, expressed skepticism about such promises, stating that the Indian legal system does not allow for shortcuts.

He pointed out that the case is currently being expedited in a fast-track court, questioning how any political party could guarantee justice in such a short timeframe.

Borthakur emphasized that after the sessions court's ruling, the case could potentially escalate to the High Court and even the Supreme Court, making it impossible to set a definitive timeline for justice.

He accused political parties of attempting to exploit Zubeen's tragic passing for their own gain, stating, “Zubeen was an artist, not a politician. I urge all political parties to refrain from using his name for political advantage and allow the judicial process to unfold.”

Criminal lawyer Bijon Mahajan weighed in on the matter, asserting that ongoing legal issues should remain solely within the judicial system's purview.

Mahajan noted that the establishment of a fast-track court is a positive step, but only the presiding judge can determine the duration of the hearings, and political interference could be seen as an attempt to sway judicial outcomes.

He further remarked that the case might progress to higher courts, making it impossible to predict the timeline for a final decision.

Mahajan reiterated that India is not a “banana republic” and that everyone is entitled to a fair trial within the criminal justice framework.

As long as the investigation is ongoing, only the government can indicate when a chargesheet will be filed. However, once the chargesheet is submitted and the case is under judicial review, the government cannot impose a deadline for the verdict, he concluded.