CJP’s Jantar Mantar stir spills into second day; SC steps in

NEW DELHI: Protests demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar continued to reverberate across the national capital and other cities on Sunday, with police detaining fresh groups of demonstrators, the Supreme Court intervening against unlawful restrictions and the leadership of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) being released from custody.

A major development on Sunday was the release of CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke and fellow leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, who had been detained after arriving in Delhi by air on Saturday.

Their detention had triggered concerns among supporters, who said they had difficulty establishing contact with the leaders. A court subsequently ordered their release, subject to an undertaking to maintain public peace.

The release removed an immediate uncertainty surrounding the movement’s leadership but did not bring the agitation to an end. CJP supporters continued to mobilise, reiterating their demand for Kumar’s resignation and raising questions about the conduct of the electoral-roll revision exercise.

Despite the restrictions, small groups of protesters returned to the streets on Sunday, attempting to march towards Jantar Mantar and raising slogans against the Chief Election Commissioner and the SIR exercise.

Police personnel intercepted several groups and took demonstrators away in buses and other vehicles. There were instances in which protesters carrying placards were dragged into vehicles, while some individuals claimed that they had been detained despite not participating in the demonstrations. A student and several women alleged that they had been manhandled during police action.

The second consecutive day of agitation exposed a growing confrontation over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, with the protesters accusing the Election Commission of compromising electoral integrity, while the authorities maintained that restrictions were necessary to prevent a breach of law and order.

The Supreme Court’s intervention emerged as the day’s most significant development. A special bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana directed the authorities to ensure that peaceful demonstrators were not detained unlawfully, public movement was not unnecessarily obstructed, and Metro and railway services operated normally unless restrictions became necessary to address a genuine public-order situation.

The court also directed the authorities to review road barricades, ensure internet services functioned without undue hindrance and remove a notice board concerning prohibitory restrictions around the Supreme Court premises, if it had not already been removed. The directions came amid petitions challenging the handling of Saturday’s demonstrations and allegations that restrictions on public transport had violated earlier judicial directions.

The bench emphasised that peaceful assembly and freedom of movement must be protected in accordance with law, particularly outside areas where prohibitory orders were in force. The authorities were asked to submit a compliance report by October 13.

Delhi Police maintained tight security in central Delhi, with restrictions on gatherings and additional deployments intended to prevent protesters from converging on the designated protest area. Authorities had also announced traffic diversions and security measures across the New Delhi district.

The crackdown followed Saturday’s large-scale operation, during which thousands of people were detained at different locations across the capital as demonstrators attempted to reach Jantar Mantar. Reports differed on the total number detained, with estimates ranging from around 3,000 to more than 7,000, depending on the accounts and scope of the operations being reported.

The planned gathering at Jantar Mantar failed to materialise on Saturday after police denied permission for the demonstration, citing concerns over compliance with protest regulations and the potential for law-and-order disturbances.

The movement has attracted students, young activists and sections of the political opposition. Its campaign has gathered momentum around allegations that the SIR process could result in the exclusion of legitimate voters and undermine confidence in the electoral system.

The central issue remains the SIR exercise, under which electoral rolls are being revised and verified. Critics have questioned the scale of voter deletions and raised concerns about the transparency of the process and its possible political implications. The protesters allege that the exercise threatens voting rights and have called for accountability from the Election Commission, including the resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner.

The Election Commission and the BJP have rejected allegations of politically motivated manipulation. The explanation advanced by the authorities is that names may be removed because of deaths, relocation or individuals being untraceable during verification.

The controversy has also moved into the judicial arena. Earlier in October, the Supreme Court sought responses from the Union government, the Election Commission and the Chief Election Commissioner on concerns surrounding the revision of electoral rolls. The latest demonstrations have therefore unfolded against the backdrop of an ongoing legal and political dispute over the integrity of the electoral process.

The agitation was not confined to Delhi. Reports on Sunday indicated that smaller demonstrations were held in Mumbai, Kolkata, Panaji and Pune, as supporters sought to extend the campaign beyond the national capital.

The spread of protests reflects the movement’s attempt to build a wider platform around electoral accountability and the right to dissent. However, police action and restrictions on gatherings remained a recurring feature of the demonstrations in several locations.

In Delhi, the scale of Saturday’s operation also prompted criticism over the impact of security measures on ordinary commuters and access to public transport. The Supreme Court’s Sunday directions addressed these concerns by requiring authorities to ensure that restrictions remained legally justified and proportionate to the prevailing situation.

The police response has also been shaped by reports of confrontations during Saturday’s demonstrations. The Week reported on Sunday that Delhi Police had registered 20 FIRs in connection with the protests, including cases relating to alleged assaults on police personnel and obstruction of public servants.

Reports of stone-pelting and injuries to police personnel added to the tensions. Police officials said more than 15 personnel were injured in incidents connected with the demonstrations. An FIR was also reported against four Hindu Raksha Dal activists arrested over allegations that they assaulted young protesters and manhandled women.

These allegations and cases form part of the police investigation; they do not establish the guilt of those accused. The developments nevertheless underline the competing concerns surrounding the protests: the right of demonstrators to express dissent peacefully and the responsibility of the authorities to prevent violence and maintain public order.

Sunday’s events have brought the dispute beyond the original demand for the Chief Election Commissioner’s resignation. The question now also concerns how the authorities handle political demonstrations when permission is denied and whether restrictions imposed in the name of public order remain proportionate.

The Supreme Court’s intervention has placed the focus on the legal limits of detention, restrictions on movement and the functioning of essential public services. At the same time, allegations of stone-pelting and assaults have reinforced the need for investigations into any violence committed during the protests.

With the CJP leadership released and fresh demonstrations reported despite heavy security, the agitation remained unresolved at the end of Sunday. The immediate confrontation may shift towards the courts and the political arena, but the underlying dispute over electoral-roll revisions, institutional accountability and the protection of peaceful dissent continues to demand answers.