According to the notification, the SIR is underway across the state and every voter whose name is already included in the existing electoral roll is required to fill the enumeration form and submit it to the concerned Booth Level Officer (BLO). The BLO will visit voters at their residences to collect the completed forms by August 8, 2026.

The notification states that the names of voters who submit the duly filled and signed enumeration forms will be included in the draft electoral roll scheduled for publication on August 17, 2026.

Schedules for inclusion, corrections and objections

The schedule states that eligible voters whose names do not appear in the draft electoral roll, as well as new eligible voters, may apply for inclusion by submitting Form 6 along with the prescribed declaration and supporting documents during the claims and objections period from August 17 to September 16, 2026.

The applications will be verified by the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) before eligible names are included in the final electoral roll.

The document further states that voters seeking correction of entries in the electoral roll may submit Form 8 during the claims and objections period. It also provides that any voter in the concerned constituency may seek deletion of an entry from the draft electoral roll by filing Form 7.

Provision on false declarations

The July 27 notification refers to Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, stating that any person making a false declaration or statement while applying for inclusion, correction or deletion of a name in the electoral roll is liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or fine, or both.

Final electoral roll scheduled for October 19

The July 27 notification also re-affirms that the final electoral roll will be published on October 19, 2026.

It further states that publication of the final electoral roll does not conclude the process of updating electoral records. Referring to Sections 22 and 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, it states that entries in the electoral roll may continue to be corrected and eligible persons whose names are not included may apply for inclusion through Form 6 even after publication of the final roll.

It also states that correction of electoral rolls is a continuous process and that, under Section 23(3) of the Act, such corrections may be carried out up to the last date for filing nominations for any election.

Revised SIR schedule

Separately, the Election Commission has revised the schedule for the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Maharashtra with October 1, 2026 as the qualifying date. The revised programme was communicated to the Chief Electoral Officer, Maharashtra through a letter dated July 15, 2026, replacing the schedule issued on May 14, 2026.

Under the revised schedule, house-to-house visits by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) will continue from June 30, 2026 to August 8, 2026. Rationalisation and re-arrangement of polling stations has been fixed for August 8, 2026. The draft electoral roll will be published on August 17, 2026, while the period for filing claims and objections will remain open from August 17 to September 16, 2026. The notice phase and disposal of claims and objections will continue until October 15, 2026, and the final electoral roll is scheduled to be published on October 19, 2026.

CEO, Maharashtra’s official revised schedule dated July 15, 2026

Link: https://ceoelection.maharashtra.gov.in/Downloads/PDF/Notification/Revised%20Schedule%20-%20SIR%202026.pdf

The Commission has also directed that the revised schedule be given wide publicity through available media and that political parties be informed of the modified programme in writing.

Earlier schedule

The revised programme changes the schedule originally notified for Maharashtra under the nationwide Phase III Special Intensive Revision. Under the earlier timetable, house-to-house visits by BLOs were scheduled from June 30 to July 29, 2026, the draft electoral roll was to be published on August 5, 2026, claims and objections were to be accepted from August 5 to September 4, 2026, disposal of claims and objections was scheduled until October 3, 2026, and the final electoral roll was to be published on October 7, 2026.

Following the revision, the house-to-house enumeration period has been extended by 10 days, while the publication of the draft electoral roll, the claims and objections period, disposal of claims and objections, and publication of the final electoral roll have been rescheduled.

Related:

UN Rights Experts flag Discrimination in ECI’s SIR exercise, seek India’s response

Disenfranchisement route to Majoritarian Rule: Political Logic of SIR

Exclusive Investigation SIR: How many voters did the ECI actually disenfranchise? Why do final figures show inexplicable ‘additions’?

Judgement delivered, paradox prevails: every voter a citizen, but what is the fate of 51.8 million excluded?

SC greenlights SIR, upholds ECI’s power to revise electoral rolls

The post SIR Maharashtra: CEO details schedules for publication & verification of draft and final electoral rolls appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Hindu reported that the Bill was passed by voice vote amid sustained Opposition protests in the Rajya Sabha. Opposition MPs continued to demand a statement from Union Home Minister Amit Shah over the police action against demonstrators protesting the alleged NEET paper leak, before eventually staging a walkout during the debate. Defending the legislation, Minister of State for Home Affairs Nityanand Rai said Vande Mataram was inseparable from India’s freedom movement and accused the Congress of diminishing a symbol of national honour through “appeasement politics”, according to The Hindu.

The government’s decision to expand the law comes despite a decade-long record of low convictions and mounting case backlogs under the existing legislation. An analysis by The Indian Express, based on National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data from 2014 to 2024, found that 699 cases were registered under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act over the 11-year period. These cases led to the arrest of 1,102 people and the chargesheeting of 962 individuals, yet only 60 people were convicted, while 153 were acquitted or discharged.

The data also points to a criminal justice system struggling to dispose of such cases. According to The Indian Express, the number of cases pending trial rose from 85 in 2014 to 358 by the end of 2024, representing a more than fourfold increase. During the same period, police chargesheeting rates declined substantially—from 53.6% in 2014 to 36.5% in 2024. By the end of 2024, 53 cases remained under police investigation, while the overall trial pendency rate stood at 95.2%, continuing a pattern in which more than nine out of every ten cases remained pending each year.

The conviction record has been particularly weak. NCRB data cited by The Indian Express shows that acquittals exceeded convictions in every year between 2014 and 2024. In 2024, courts recorded six convictions, compared with 25 acquittals or discharges of accused persons. Across the entire period, only 44 cases ended in conviction, while 105 cases resulted in acquittal or discharge, highlighting the limited effectiveness of prosecutions under the existing law even as Parliament has chosen to broaden its scope to include Vande Mataram.

Related:

Your highness?

64 percent increase in Sedition cases since 2015

Key concerns about violations of UN covenant with regard to Dalits and Adivasis: Joint submission

The post Rajya Sabha passes Vande Mataram bill as NCRB data reveals high pendency, low convictions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan amid the political fallout surrounding examination controversies and sustained student anger over examination-related concerns has brought back into focus the strength of democracy and youth: some of the most consequential political corrections do not happen inside Parliament but outside it—on streets, at protest sites, in university campuses and in public spaces where ordinary citizens refuse to let their concerns be ignored. The “Cockroach Janta Party” emerged as a satirical youth-led protest movement after a remark by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant; and young protesters transformed it into a platform of resistance, starting with humour, memes and digital mobilisation, and then on-site protest and fast to highlight broader anxieties over unemployment, examinations and institutional accountability.

For the students who stood at the forefront of protest, the journey was marked not merely by slogans and demonstrations, but by immense personal hardship. They faced police crackdowns, lathi charges (even pellet injuries and sexual abuse!), physical injuries, detention and intimidation. Excessive force, restrictions on movement, internet shutdowns, closure of businesses and disruption of daily life across protest sites reflected the heavy cost imposed on those exercising their democratic rights. Young people, including women protesters, endured harassment, abuse and humiliation while insisting that their concerns be heard. Behind every protest was a human story of anxiety, sacrifice and resilience: the latest is a generation that felt compelled to leave classrooms and homes to defend the fairness and credibility of the very systems upon which their aspirations and future depend.

The departure of a senior minister from one of the most sensitive portfolios of governance underscores the growing power of public pressure as a force of democratic accountability in contemporary India. For millions of students who spent weeks demanding transparency, fairness and institutional responsibility, the moment carries the significance of a democratic victory—the recognition that sustained civic resistance can compel even powerful governments to confront failures they might otherwise seek to manage politically. The intensity of the public debate was reflected in the usually restrained PM Modi’s late-night Instagram video defending the government’s handling of the controversy, while Union ministers simultaneously engaged with activist Sonam Wangchuk, leading to the conclusion of his hunger strike. Together, these developments demonstrated that sustained public mobilisation had pushed the government into direct engagement, reinforcing a fundamental democratic principle: when citizens organise persistently, power is compelled to respond.

But the significance extends beyond one minister or one controversy. It reflects the rise of a new generation of Indians unwilling to accept institutional failure as inevitable. For these young citizens, the struggle was never merely about examinations; it was about trust, merit and the credibility of systems that shape their futures. Their movement represented a larger democratic demand—that institutions created to serve citizens must remain accountable to those whose lives and aspirations they influence. This politically conscious youth generation participates beyond traditional party structures. They organise through campuses, digital networks, creative campaigns and public conversations, using technology not merely to communicate but to mobilise, document and challenge authority. Their politics is rooted in lived realities—unemployment, questions of fairness, institutional credibility and the anxieties of a generation competing for limited opportunities. For millions, a competitive examination is not merely a test; it is often the dividing line between economic security and prolonged uncertainty

The significance of the student movement lies in how it transformed individual anxiety into collective democratic action. Students who could have remained isolated by personal uncertainty recognised a shared institutional failure and converted it into a national conversation. Their struggle demonstrated that youth participation in democracy does not begin and end with voting every few years; it also means questioning systems, demanding transparency and insisting that institutions remain answerable to the people they serve.

This is the same democratic force that was witnessed during the farmers’ movement, which forced the repeal of the three farm laws in 2021. The issues were different, but the underlying principle was remarkably similar: citizens confronting a powerful State, facing initial dismissal, enduring prolonged resistance and ultimately creating enough moral and political pressure for the government to reconsider its position.

When the farm laws were introduced in 2020, the Union government presented them as transformative reforms that would modernise agriculture, expand market opportunities and attract investment. Farmers, however, feared that the reforms would weaken the minimum support price system and gradually erode the mandi structure that protected millions of cultivators. Instead of resolving these concerns through sustained dialogue, the disagreement escalated into confrontation. Farmers moving towards Delhi encountered barricades, trenches, barbed wire, concrete barriers, restrictions and heavy security deployment—creating the extraordinary image of the State responding to its own citizens as a security challenge.

The movement was also subjected to political de-legitimisation, with sections of the ruling establishment and its supporters portraying protesters as politically motivated and, at times, associating them with anti-national or separatist forces. Yet the farmers remained at Delhi’s borders for more than a year through harsh weather, criticism and immense political pressure. Their persistence eventually forced the government to withdraw the laws.

The significance of that moment extended far beyond agricultural policy, and it demonstrated that electoral dominance cannot substitute for democratic persuasion. A government may possess a strong parliamentary majority, but legitimacy requires more than numbers; it requires public trust, dialogue and the willingness to listen.

The student movement carries the same message. Institutions cannot demand public confidence while avoiding public accountability. When young citizens are forced to leave classrooms and enter streets to demand fairness, protest is not a disruption of democracy—it is one of democracy’s most important corrective mechanisms.

India’s students have historically been central to democratic transformation, from the freedom movement to the anti-Emergency struggles. The present generation belongs to that longer tradition of young citizens questioning authority and reshaping public debate.

But unlike earlier political movements built primarily around traditional organisations and ideological structures, today’s youth movements operate through networks, creative communication and collective storytelling. This generation does not merely react to political decisions; it documents, debates and challenges them. Its politics is shaped by immediate questions of dignity, opportunity, merit and institutional credibility. A hashtag can become a movement, a meme a political message, and a single statement a national conversation. Democracies survive not merely because institutions exist, but because citizens believe those institutions are fair. Once that confidence weakens, protest becomes a language through which society demands repair. No government moves survive without democratic consent.

This new generation is not rejecting democracy but demanding a deeper system with transparent and responsive institutions. They are demanding that systems determining their futures deserve their trust, and they have new methods to mobilise and react.

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act protests, particularly the women-led mobilisation at Shaheen Bagh, transformed a public space into a forum of constitutional dialogue. By carrying copies of the Constitution and the Preamble, ordinary citizens asserted a fundamental democratic principle: questioning government policy is not an act of disloyalty. In a constitutional democracy, disagreement with those in power is itself a legitimate form of citizenship.

The wrestlers’ protest in 2023 raised another troubling question about institutional accountability. Athletes who had brought international recognition to India were compelled to mobilise publicly while seeking action over serious allegations. Their struggle revealed an uncomfortable reality: when institutions fail to respond adequately, even those with public recognition may feel compelled to seek justice through collective pressure.

These movements differ in their immediate demands, but they share a common democratic foundation. Citizens do not take to the streets because they have abandoned faith in the Republic. They do so because they believe the Republic can still be made to listen.

The deeper concern for Indian democracy is not that citizens are expressing their voice. It is that governments increasingly risk interpreting criticism as hostility, dissent as conspiracy and critics as adversaries, anti-national elements or even threats to national security. Such an approach misunderstands the essence of constitutional democracy. Peaceful protest is not an attack on the State; it is one of the ways through which the State is reminded of its obligations.

The government has a legitimate responsibility to maintain public order and act against violence. But there is a fundamental difference between enforcing law and delegitimising peaceful opposition. Force, political labelling and attempts to discredit protesters may delay resolution, but they cannot eliminate legitimate grievances or rebuild public trust.

Democratic movements function as warning systems. They reveal failures that governments, protected by electoral victories and administrative power, may overlook. A confident democracy does not fear criticism; it uses criticism to correct itself. Revising a policy after hearing citizens is not weakness, but it shows that democracy remains capable of engagement.

India’s recent protest movements reaffirm a constitutional truth often forgotten by those in power: electoral mandates provide the authority to govern, but they do not provide immunity from scrutiny. From the repeal of the farm laws to the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan, these episodes demonstrate that democratic resistance remains one of the strongest safeguards against unchecked power.

The greatest democratic victories are not always the defeat of governments or political opponents. They are moments when citizens compel power to listen, reflect and correct itself. From farmers’ fields to university campuses, Indians continue to defend a foundational constitutional principle: sovereignty ultimately belongs to the people.

Democratic protest does not weaken governments; it reminds them of their responsibility. It is through such moments of public accountability that power remembers whom it exists to serve.

(The author is an Indian author (his first book being The Essential,2023), policy analyst, and columnist. His research and commentary regularly appear in scholarly and popular publications. Follow @ens_socialis)

Related:

The Battle of Belonging: Why India’s Passport Controversy Matters

Hegemony: Kerala’s Bharatapuzha as a political stage

The post The Republic Speaks Back: How Student Power Reminded Authority of Its Limits appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Revolution has begun…But is it from the frying pan into the fire? The appointment of another hard-core RSS man, Prahlad Joshi, to succeed Pradhan is certainly no solution. Everyone knows that! In March 2022, in the height of the Russia-Ukraine war, when Indian students studying there had to be brought back. Joshi famously said, “Ninety per cent of Indians who study medicine abroad fail to clear qualifying exams in India.”  He hurt the sentiments of many then. When the rapists of Bilkis Bano and the ones who brutally murdered her kith and kin were prematurely released a few years ago, it was he who defended their premature release. The Supreme Court then annulled the remission period granted to these rapists and murderers. To think that this man now presides over the education and future of our youth is, for most, totally unacceptable.

The Revolution has begun…the youth protesting in Jantar Mantar and elsewhere were loud and clear. They would never allow xenophobia, exclusivism, sectarianism or any form of bigotry to permeate their ideals, their dreams, their hopes for a better future. They visibly and vocally demonstrated in no uncertain ways that they were first and foremost citizens of the country, students and youth. They were with one heart and one mind, transcending the confines of every religion. They belonged to every strata of society. No one could divide them and pit them against each other.  Not the fascist, fundamentalist agenda of the regime. They were determined not to fall prey to insidious designs. With the Constitution in hand, they chanted in unison, ” We are one, we shall overcome!” Hum Honge Kaaba!”

The Revolution has begun…Arundhati Roy is one of the most celebrated and renowned Indian personalities today. In a hard-hitting and incisive article in ‘The Wire’ (dtd. July 22, 2026) entitled ‘Cockroach Democracy: Unarmed and Dangerous’, she writes, “For the first time in years, it feels wonderful to be Indian. Just when hope seemed lost, they came. Young roaches riding in on the rain. The progeny of the unholy union between a judge and a joke…. The cockroaches took the capital city by storm. They came by train, by bus, by air, by metro, their numbers increasing by the hour. Hours before the first rays of sunlight lightened Delhi’s monsoon skies, they began to pour into Jantar Mantar in the tens of thousands. By sunrise it was clear that a generation of desperate and furious young people who have seen their future snuffed out before their eyes was going to reclaim what their parents and grandparents’ generations had conceded: our dignity as a people and as a country. Our rights as citizens of a democracy.

The Revolution has begun…thousands of students, youth and others have come out on the streets all over the country: in perhaps every big city and small town, in district headquarters and even in villages. This was not a paid mob mobilisation – as this current Government does so often!  It was a spontaneous uprising, giving rise to their angst, their sense of outrage at what is happening to them, to the whole educational system, to the fact that twenty-one students had committed suicide because of the NEET paper leakage. It reminded one of the ‘Arab Spring’, of what happened not too long ago in neighbouring Nepal and Sri Lanka, and they have come out in hordes everywhere in protest. Besides, in several countries across the world there have been protests in solidarity with what is happening in India. All major civil society organisations and movements have issued powerful statements of support to the students.

The Revolution has begun…in Ahmedabad, in Gujarat, the sight was unbelievable. Something never seen in recent years. Groups of students walking together, singing as though they were on a picnic. There were droves of them. Shouting slogans, of course: “Modi hatao! Desh Bachao!” People were rubbing their eyes and ears! This in Ahmedabad of all places! Well, it is happening! Some were detained! There were thousands of police and security (with guns and armoured vehicles) in the Gujarat University area. They could do nothing. The students/youth were not ‘in assembly’ – just walking. And can anyone stop people walking? They were walking for change! The political masters, of course, will never forget the ‘Nav Nirman’ agitation of 1974 and how a Government was overthrown!

The Revolution has begun…Indian academic and social analyst Pratap Bhanu Mehta, in an article, ‘Cockroaches’ have shown us what it means to be courageous citizens — not subjects’ (Indian Express dtd July 27, 2026), does plain speaking, saying, “The farmers’ agitation had made the government withdraw legislation. But this is the first time that the government has acknowledged the need for taking responsibility and being held accountable…There are glorious moments when the youth of the nation demonstrate that they are indeed the genuine trustees of posterity, to borrow Benjamin Disraeli’s phrase. A generation that has been catastrophically failed by their elders, who bequeathed to them authoritarianism, communalism, a failing education system, an administrative state marked by impunity, and an atmosphere of suffocating fear, decided to take their future into their own hands. They made a regime and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, intoxicated with fantasies of total power, look out of touch, small and ridiculous. By itself, the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan will not bring change. But India’s young have shown that the regime is vulnerable. We can still pull back from the abyss.”

The Revolution has begun… Rhiya Ahir courageously demonstrated the power of one: the power of youth, the power of women!  On July 22, she went to the protest rally in Shivaji Park, Mumbai.  As she was walking towards the venue, she noticed a police van packed with youth who were detained by the police. The sight immediately disturbed her, and she says, “The van was stuffed from the front to the back. There was no space to stand.” She did not know anyone inside. She plucked up courage to stand in front of the van, not allowing it to proceed. What followed was a heated exchange with the police. They knew they were wrong, Rhiya asserts. They finally relented and released all the youth they had detained. The defining pictures and videos of Rhiya preventing the police van from moving went viral!

The Revolution has begun… godimedia has been singing the tunes of the ruling regime to no end. The mainstream media has been bought up, corrupted, co-opted, and threatened. For several days, they did not take cognisance of the Jantar Mantar protest. The prestigious UK newspaper ‘The Guardian’ (July 26, 2026) in a lead analysis piece, ‘India’s Cockroach Janta party protest victory signals trouble ahead for Modi’, puts it succinctly, “Modi had also lost another medium critical to the BJP’s domination over the national narrative – the mainstream TV news channels widely acknowledged to have been co-opted by the BJP government over the past 12 years and turned into mouthpieces for its right-wing Hindu nationalist ideology. Initially, the channels ignored the protests, and when they did cover them, it was to suggest the protesters were being bankrolled by sinister foreign forces and Pakistani terror groups. In response, the protesters turned on the channels, using social media to expose their “lies”. When the protests escalated, Modi remained conspicuously absent from the airwaves. Interestingly, since times are changing, godified media, like a chameleon, is also changing colours. Foreign media have editorials and articles on this!

The Revolution has begun…the ‘Sansad Chalo’ march to Parliament on 20 July was proof enough of this fact! The fact that hundreds of thousands, from all walks of life, began this historic march was a breakthrough in the recent annals of the country. There was panic among the ruling regime. They spared no efforts to stop the march. All police and paramilitary forces were called out. Thousands of the marchers were baton-charged, beaten, and pellet guns were used against them. Many had to be hospitalised.  This ensured a groundswell of protests all over the country. On July 27, the Supreme Court said, “The right to peaceful, lawful protest absolutely guaranteed under the Constitution. So long as it is peaceful agitation, merely because there is agitation, there can’t be lathi-charge. Police excesses must be inquired into.” The Bihar youth are still under attack by the ruling regime. They seem to have forgotten that in 1974, the JP Andolan began in Patna, Bihar!

The Revolution has begun… The Jantar Mantar protest was about reclaiming shrinking democratic space in the country. And wow, it succeeded tremendously – with a profound impact everywhere. The right to dissent is back on the big canvas. People are out on the streets. It is significant that whilst delivering the fourth Justice GP Singh memorial lecture at the National Law Institute University in Bhopal on July 25, Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan referred to the right to dissent. He said, “It will not be an exaggeration to say that public space for expressing divergent opinion is shrinking in India. The right to express one’s views and to demonstrate peacefully are fundamental freedoms guaranteed to citizens. Debate and dissent are the essence of democracy…Unfortunately, even normal activities are being criminalised. Students protesting on campuses are arrested, and they do not get bail for 30 to 40 days. They are suspended, for which they have to go to court. It takes time. These issues raise serious questions.” The last thirty-five days are changing things! 

The Revolution has begun… against corruption. The youth are not going to take things lying down anymore.  Not only corruption in education, but which has permeated every strata of society. Beginning right at the top. There is a lack of accountability and transparency. Much has to be addressed, like demonetisation, electoral bonds, the PM Cares fund, and now the E20 (The E20 Janata Party is on the rise). More questions will be asked. Where did the RSS and BJP get the enormous amounts of money to put up palatial buildings everywhere? What about the crony capitalist friends who profiteer at the cost of the poor and by looting the country? What about electoral malpractices: the manipulation of the EVMs and the meticulous disenfranchisement, through SIR, of thousands of legitimate citizens everywhere.

The Revolution has begun …In a strongly worded statement on July 27, the Cockroach Janata Party said, “We are observing a complete breach of the agreement regarding no police action against the protestors. Hundreds of students have been arrested in Bihar and Bengal, and hundreds are being shrivelled/harassed in Delhi and other states. Multiple reports are emerging in Delhi around the detention of volunteers supporting protestors with logistics. We demand that all the FIRs against the protestors be immediately withdrawn, students be released, and no future FIRs be filed (in line with our agreement) by Delhi police / Central investigative agencies / Police in BJP-allied states, FAILING WHICH WE WILL BE FORCED TO SIT ON PROTEST AGAIN. We also demand that the written agreement around legal cases be shared with us by tomorrow, along with the aligned timelines with the Government of India.” Yes, the protests, are not a flash-in the- pan!

One has had enough of references to the past: from the French Revolution to the Quit India Movement! The Revolution has begun indeed…. And there is no looking back!

July 27 2026

 (The author is a human rights, reconciliation and peace activist & writer)

The post The Revolution has begun….! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a sense, the developments may mark a significant de-escalation after one of the country’s largest youth-led protest movements in recent years. Little moves for pinning individual or collective accountability on RAF/Police/Paramilitary inflicted violence have been witnessed though. This leaves unresolved questions about accountability of the state during peaceful protest.

Bihar: first state to formally withdraw cases

The Bihar Home Department on Monday issued a notification announcing that no punitive, retaliatory or other adverse legal action would be taken against anyone who participated in protests before 6 p.m. on July 26.

The government said it would immediately begin the legal process of withdrawing all FIRs, criminal complaints and show-cause notices linked to the demonstrations. Everyone arrested or detained in connection with those cases would be released, while the government also assured that no future action would be taken against protesters covered by the order. Past experiences of activists and protests movements however reveal many a slip between the cup on the lip: at the height of agitations when public anger and attention is trained on the issue being agitated, the state appears to “concede to its overreach;” once public attention –notoriously fickle shifts—the demeanour of the state hardens. It then becomes a herculean task to ensure that these promises are kept.

Be that as it may, the “prompt” announcement of case withdrawals this time came after sustained pressure from the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), the All India Students’ Association (AISA) and several student organisations, which had accused governments of reneging on commitments made during negotiations that led to the suspension of nationwide protests.

Neha Bora: “The movement will not stop”

AISA national president and JNU PhD scholar Neha Bora confirmed that Bihar’s notification followed a meeting between student representatives and Bihar Director General of Police Vinay Kumar.

Posting on X, Bora wrote: “Order of release of arrested students and withdrawal of cases has been notified following our meeting with Bihar DGP.”

संघर्ष तब तक जब तक आखिरी छात्र अपने घर नहीं पहुँच जाता है!

Order of release of arrested students and withdrawal of cases has been notified following our meeting with Bihar DGP pic.twitter.com/xxLL5y75FO

— Neha (@neha_aisa) July 27, 2026

However, she made clear that the notification alone would not end the agitation. Calling dissent a constitutional right rather than a crime, she said AISA would continue monitoring implementation of the government’s assurances until every detained student had been released. Even after welcoming Bihar’s notification, Bora maintained that AISA’s planned statewide protest on July 30 would remain in place until the government fully implements its commitments. At a press conference in Patna, Bora declared:

“Jab tak har arrested student protestor riha nahi hota, movement rukne wala nahi. The right to dissent is a constitutional right, not a crime. No government can take that away.”

AISA All India President Neha Bora (@neha_aisa) made it clear at a press conference in Patna today:

Jab tak har arrested student protestor riha nahi hota, movement rukne wala nahi.

The right to dissent is a constitutional right, not a crime. No government can take that away. pic.twitter.com/8vN0HEyfRK

— AISA (@aisa_official_) July 27, 2026

Assam follows with similar assurance

Hours later, the Assam government issued a similar press note. The state acknowledged that five criminal cases had been registered and 13 people arrested during the protests but announced that it would begin withdrawing those cases “as per law” while expediting the release of everyone arrested. The government further stated that it would initiate no further legal proceedings against those involved in the protests and would treat the matter as closed once the process is completed.

The Assam government’s announcement has also raised hopes for Monjur Rahman, Ashraful Islam and Abdul Kashem, the three young men arrested after allegedly attempting to organise a solidarity protest. As reported by The Wire, their families have maintained that the protest never even took place. With Assam now promising to withdraw protest-related cases and release those arrested, it remains to be seen whether their cases will also be withdrawn.

Bengal remains the key test

West Bengal is now the principal state where protesters continue to await a similar announcement. According to ThePrint, senior police officials indicated that while the government is examining the possibility of withdrawing protest-related cases, FIRs lodged by private complainants—including journalists alleging assault during the demonstrations—would likely require separate legal examination.

Meanwhile, The Hindu reported that Kolkata Police arrested two more people on Monday in connection with the July 24 Esplanade violence, taking the total number of arrests to sixteen. Responding to the developments, the Cockroach Janta Party publicly appealed to Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari to honour the assurances allegedly given during negotiations with Union ministers J.P. Nadda and Jitendra Singh by releasing all arrested protesters and withdrawing every pending FIR.

CJP says Delhi calm, updates expected from three states

Providing the latest organisational update in a video statement, CJP spokesperson Ratna Singh said the party expects official updates regarding FIR withdrawals and the release of detainees from West Bengal, Delhi and Maharashtra shortly. She added that, according to information received by the organisation, no fresh FIRs have been registered and no new detentions have taken place in Delhi since the agreement. Ratna also said the organisation had raised concerns with authorities over allegations that members of one particular community were being selectively targeted and harassed for participating in the protests.

According to her, officials assured CJP that clear instructions would be communicated to all police officers to prevent any such discrimination. She further disclosed that she had received complaints from Goa regarding the alleged harassment of a protest organiser and had requested the concerned authorities to examine the matter. The update was shared through her official post on X, where she wrote:

Update on FIR withdrawals and the release of detained/arrested individuals: We expect updates from West Bengal, Delhi, and Maharashtra shortly, and we will share them as soon as we receive them. Yesterday, we were informed that there are currently no fresh FIRs being registered or detentions taking place in Delhi. I also raised concerns that members of one particular community were allegedly targeted and harassed for participating in the protest. We were assured that clear instructions would be communicated to all officers to ensure this does not happen. As of now, there are no fresh FIRs in Delhi. I was also contacted regarding a similar issue in Goa, where an organiser is allegedly facing harassment. I have requested the concerned authorities to look into the matter.

Update on FIR withdrawals and the release of detained/arrested individuals:

We expect updates from West Bengal, Delhi, and Maharashtra shortly, and we will share them as soon as we receive them.

Yesterday, we were informed that there are currently no fresh FIRs being registered…

— Ratna Singh (@whattalawyer) July 28, 2026

Agreement must be honoured

The government notifications followed a public warning from the Cockroach Janta Party earlier on July 27. Addressing the media, CJP spokesperson Ashutosh Ranka accused governments of violating the understanding reached after the Jantar Mantar protests by continuing arrests in Bihar and West Bengal while allegedly detaining volunteers in Delhi. He warned that unless FIRs were withdrawn immediately and governments stopped initiating fresh criminal proceedings, the organisation would be forced to resume nationwide protests.

Later that night, CJP spokesperson Saurav Das announced that government representatives, including Delhi Police officials, had met party leaders and shown them Bihar’s official notification confirming withdrawal of cases. Das said the organisation had also expressed concern over possible harassment of protesters across states and claimed that authorities assured them that appropriate instructions would be issued to prevent any retaliatory action.

Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal, who has been advising the organisation, said he would continue providing legal assistance to protesters. Alongside pressing governments to withdraw criminal proceedings, CJP announced a nationwide legal support initiative. The organisation has launched a public fundraising campaign to support injured protesters and those facing criminal proceedings. It has also established legal aid cells across India, with Kapil Sibal pledging ₹1 crore towards legal assistance while urging lawyers across districts to volunteer.

Additionally, CJP announced the launch of the Sakshi Portal, where photographs and videos documenting alleged police excesses during the protests can be uploaded for legal documentation.

Allegations of excessive force continue

Despite governments beginning to withdraw cases, allegations against police remain widespread. Ratna Singh alleged that volunteer lawyers are already assisting detainees in Assam, West Bengal and Bihar. She claimed that eleven people had been arrested in Kolkata, ten of whom belonged to the Muslim community, and alleged that stringent legal provisions were being considered against them.

She further alleged police brutality in Patna, Siwan and Chhapra, claiming that protesters had been booked under serious charges including attempted murder while cases had been registered against nearly 5,000 unidentified persons.

Following visits to detainees in Beur Jail, Neha Bora also alleged that arrested students described being abused, threatened with fake encounters and questioned about their religion and caste while in police custody. She further claimed that some detainees were labelled “terrorists” and “Naxalites.” Jail officials, however, assured her that students would receive all necessary assistance during their detention.

A fragile truce

While governments appear to be stepping back from criminal prosecution under public pressure, the violence witnessed during the protests remains an important part of the story. According to Bihar Police, 694 people were detained during the demonstrations. Of these, 339 students, women and minors were released after verification, while 355 individuals accused of involvement in violent incidents were produced before courts. Police stated that 91 personnel, including the Superintendents of Police of Siwan and Sitamarhi, sustained injuries during clashes. Authorities also reported that 14 police vehicles were damaged and one government vehicle was set ablaze.

One of the most controversial moments of the protests occurred in Bihar’s Siwan district, where Constable Abhishek Kumar was captured on video firing an AK-47 rifle into the air while attempting to disperse demonstrators. Bihar Police suspended the constable and ordered a departmental inquiry, confirming that four rounds were fired but stating that no injuries resulted from the incident.

Police action also extended into the digital space. According to ThePrint, Delhi Police approached X and Meta seeking removal of social media posts considered abusive towards Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other political leaders, describing the exercise as part of routine monitoring.

In Madhya Pradesh, content creator Yashpal Soni was booked over an Instagram reel allegedly containing abusive remarks directed at former Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan and the BJP. Meanwhile, Kolkata Police registered a complaint after BJP leader Keya Ghosh alleged that actor Sreelekha Mitra displayed defamatory caricatures of the Prime Minister during a protest rally.

Detailed report may be read here.

For now, the immediate confrontation appears to be easing. Bihar and Assam stated that they will implement these commitments that student organisations say, formed the basis of the agreement reached with the Union government. Delhi, according to CJP, has not seen any fresh FIRs or detentions since the understanding was reached, while West Bengal and Maharashtra are expected to announce their positions shortly. Yet protest leaders insist the movement is far from over.

Both CJP and AISA say they will continue monitoring implementation of the government’s assurances until every arrested protester has been released, every pending FIR withdrawn and all allegations of harassment addressed.

The rollback of criminal proceedings may have reduced immediate tensions, but it does not resolve the deeper questions exposed by the protests: the limits of police force, accountability for violence committed during demonstrations, the treatment of detainees, and the balance between maintaining public order and safeguarding the constitutional right to peaceful dissent.

Other detailed reports may be read here, here, here and here.

Related:

A deleted tweet, an NSA order, and the shadow of past crackdowns

Youth Uprising: A protest, a brute crackdown, a continuing countrywide response

Mumbai stands with students, but the state pushes back

The exam crisis that became a battle for accountability

Brute Police Action: Mumbai’s crackdown on protestors in solidarity with CJP & Student Groups, AISF, SFI & AISA

The post Governments begin rolling back cases against protesters, but questions over violence, arrests and accountability remain appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Intervention by UN Special Rapporteurs

According to the signatories, the United Nations has already taken note of this crisis. In May 2026, UN experts wrote to the Indian government to raise alarm over human rights violations caused by the SIR process, particularly noting the severe impact on Muslims and Bengali minorities in West Bengal.

“The UN Special Rapporteurs (UNSRs) of the UN Human Rights Council, by a Joint communication dated 1 May, 2026… formally raised many concerns regarding the SIR process. It is a communication by UNSR on Minority Issues along with the UNSR on promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the UNSR on freedom of religion or belief, citing violations of human rights, particularly of the Muslim minorities in India due to the SIR process in India. It has further highlighted the SIR process in West Bengal, considering it as a matter of ‘particular concern’.”

The Bihar SIR: disproportionate exclusions

It is further stated by the petitioners that while the ECI claimed the revision was meant to ensure only eligible voters were listed, a 2025 pilot program in Bihar showed alarming bias. Millions of voters were removed in under 100 days. Muslims, women, and the poor were heavily targeted, with very few allowed to successfully appeal their deletion.

“According to the ECI, the goal of the SIR process is to ensure that ‘the names of all eligible citizens are included in the electoral roll’… The ECI ordered a SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar in 2025, seeking to re-verify the eligibility of over 81 million electors within a compressed timeline of less than 100 days. Muslims-approximately 17% of the state’s population-accounted for roughly one-third of the 4.7 million voters removed… Women reportedly constituted nearly 60% of those excluded from the draft rolls, despite comprising 47.8% of the electorate…” as stated 

52 million names deleted nationwide

According to the petition to the NHRC, following the Bihar SIR, the SIR process was expanded to 12 States and Union Territories. An estimated 52 million names were erased. West Bengal was hit the hardest, losing 9.1 million voters. People with valid IDs were removed over tiny spelling mistakes, with Muslims bearing the brunt of these deletions.

“Across the 12 States and Union Territories, approximately 52 million names have allegedly been removed, with West Bengal particularly affected, where a total of 9.1 million names were reportedly deleted from the register… Muslim voters are reported to have accounted for 34% of total deletions, against a 27% share of the State’s population; nearly two-thirds of those deleted belong to the minority community. It is reported that approximately 95% of deleted voters were Muslim… on the pretext of minor and administratively common spelling inconsistencies”  as wrote

Organised targeting via ‘Form 7’

The representation further emphasises that while the law allows citizens to object to names on the voter list using ‘Form 7’, this tool was hijacked by political affiliates to run organised campaigns meant to strike Muslims from the voter rolls in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Assam.

“Reports indicate that, in several States, this mechanism was used for organised, large-scale campaigns targeting Muslim residents: in Gujarat’s Somnath constituency, over 15,000 Form 7 applications are reported to have been filed by just 269 individuals… In Madhya Pradesh’s Indore, over 11,000 such applications were filed, several traced to BJP-affiliated individuals… In Assam… the Chief Minister is reported to have publicly directed party workers to file such applications against Bengali-speaking Muslim residents, stating in January 2026 that a specified number of such residents ‘will get deleted’ and that his ‘job is to make them suffer’…”

The use of opaque AI systems

According to the signatories, to flag errors in voter data, the government used an Artificial Intelligence system. This system operated without transparency, meaning nobody knows its error rates or if it was biased against certain communities, leading to millions losing their right to vote without proper due process.

“The exercise reportedly employed an AI-driven system to flag ‘irregularities’ in voter data, without adequate transparency regarding its methodology, error rates, or safeguards against bias raising serious due-process concerns given the scale and finality of the consequences (loss of the right to vote) that flow from such flagging.”

Leaders conflating citizens with “infiltrators”

It is further stated by the petitioners that top government officials have publicly used dangerous language, referring to deleted voters as illegal immigrants. By using terms like “infiltrators” and “purifying” the voter rolls, leaders are turning legitimate Indian Muslim citizens into targets for discrimination.

It is further pointed out that “We submit that such statements by holders of high public office, made in the context of an ongoing administrative exercise, are liable to conflate lawful Indian Muslim citizens with foreign nationals… the Union Home Minister described the exercise in terms of a ‘Detect, Delete and Deport’ formula, and separately characterised it as a mechanism to ‘purify’ electoral rolls of ‘infiltrators’… risk normalising discriminatory treatment of a religious minority in the conduct of a State function.”

The Supreme Court’s “structurally impossible” timelines

The minimalist reliefs granted by the Supreme Court are also mentioned. According to the representation, when taken to the Supreme Court, the judiciary declined to stop the process. For West Bengal, the Court gave removed voters just a few days to file and win appeals before the elections. Because there were 3.4 million appeals, this timeline made it completely impossible for the tribunals to give anyone a fair hearing. It is stated that “The Supreme Court of India declined to stay the SIR process (order dated 6 April 2026)… the Supreme Court permitted West Bengal voters removed from the rolls to regain voting rights if their appeals were allowed by appellate tribunals before 21 and 27 April 2026… a compressed adjudicatory timetable applied to an exercise involving over 3.4 million appeals, which the Petitioner submits made it structurally impossible for tribunals to conduct fair and effective review of each case.”

The violation of international human rights

The NHRC has been alerted to the fact that the UN Special Rapporteurs have warned that removing millions of minorities from voter lists based on discriminatory rhetoric violates international treaties. Denying citizens their basic right to vote is a direct violation of human rights.

The communication explicitly expressed concern about discriminatory rhetorics by politicians and senior public figures… ‘amount to potential incitement to discrimination within the meaning of article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’… The Special Rapporteurs noted that the removal of an entire religious community through the SIR process risks constituting ‘an official endorsement of discriminatory attitudes towards Muslim citizens’… Therefore, we respectfully submit that being denied the ability to participate in the electoral process i.e., the right to vote and to be represented, is in itself a violation of human rights.

The appeal to the NHRC

According to the signatories, because the NHRC failed to step in during the initial Bihar pilot, the petitioners are now demanding that the Commission use its legal powers immediately. They want the NHRC to register a formal complaint, demand data from the Election Commission, hold open public hearings, and halt any further voter revisions until an investigation is done.

The signatories request the NHRC to:

“(a)  take cognizance of and register the present representation as a formal complaint under Section 12(a)(i), 12(a)(ii), 12(b) read with section 12(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993;

(b)  call for detailed reports from the relevant authorities such as Election Commission of India, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, and the concerned State Election Machinery of Bihar and West Bengal, under Section 13 of the PHR Act, disclosing (i) the exact numbers of names deleted, State- and constituency-wise, with reasons for deletion; (ii) the number of objections and appeals filed and their outcomes; and (iii) data disaggregated by religion, caste/community and gender of persons excluded and of persons subsequently declared ineligible;

(c)  Immediately constitute and conduct an open, online public hearing into the matter  by summoning the petitioners, so that the allegations herein may be examined transparently and on record- even before issuance of notice to the Election Commission of India so that this Hon’ble Full Commission may have the benefit of hearing our presentations prior to issuing of such notice;

(d) Thereafter summon responsible officials of the Election Commission of India and the concerned Ministries to appear before the Commission and respond to the specific allegations set out herein, including in relation to the design, transparency and safeguards of the AI-driven flagging system used in the SIR exercise;

(e)  recommend, as an interim measure pending completion of the inquiry, that further extension or replication of the SIR exercise to additional States/Union Territories be held in abeyance, and that adequate time, transparent procedures and effective remedial mechanisms be put in place for any ‘claims and objections’ process already underway;

(f)  recommend such accountability measures in respect of public statements by functionaries that the Commission finds to have been discriminatory or to have incited hostility against a religious or linguistic minority; and

(g)  pass such other and further orders/recommendations as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

(h)) In view of the recommendations been made by the Office of High Commission, this Hon’ble Commission should also provide them an opportunity of presenting their legal positions to the Commission in the light of international human rights law by way of an online hearing.”

NHRC set up under the Paris Principles

It is under India’s international obligations to international human rights standards that the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India was established on October 12, 1993, under the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA), 1993. The PHRA and the NHRC are designed to comply with the United Nations Paris Principles, which set the foundational global standards for National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) regarding autonomy, mandate, and independence.

Signatories of the representation

According to the document, the representation was signed by a coalition of eminent citizens and specialists including M G Devasahayam IAS (Retd), Convener, Forum for Electoral Integrity Jawhar Sircar IAS (Retd), Madhav Deshpande, Software Specialist, Venkatesh Nayak, RTI Specialist and Dr. Sant Prakash, Professor, Delhi University.

The representation dated July 23, 2026 can be accessed from here:

Related:

UN Rights Experts flag Discrimination in ECI’s SIR exercise, seek India’s response

Disenfranchisement route to Majoritarian Rule: Political Logic of SIR

Exclusive Investigation SIR: How many voters did the ECI actually disenfranchise? Why do final figures show inexplicable ‘additions’?

Judgement delivered, paradox prevails: every voter a citizen, but what is the fate of 51.8 million excluded?

The post ‘Forum for Electoral Integrity’ petitions NHRC over mass voter disenfranchisement under SIR appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In support of this claim, Shrivastava has relied on a purported account attributed to former British Prime Minister Clement Attlee, who was not in office during the Quit India Movement, to argue that it was the Indian National Army, and not the Quit India Movement, that ultimately compelled Britain to leave India.

“The leaders, be it Maulana Azad, Jawaharlal Nehru, J Prakash Narayan, or Aruna Asaf Ali, all of them accepted that the movement was a flop,” said Shrivastava. These statements were met with loud applause from members of the audience in the video.

It certainly would be an oversimplification to attribute India’s independence solely to the Quit India Movement of 1942, and would overlook several other significant developments that shaped the British decision to leave India. The role of the Indian National Army, the Royal Indian Navy mutiny, growing labour unrest, and Britain’s severe economic exhaustion after the Second World War were all undeniably important factors in hastening the end of colonial rule.

Yet acknowledging these factors does not diminish the importance of the Quit India Movement which profoundly altered the political landscape, a fact reflected in reports and British correspondence, including those sent to the then Prime Minister Winston Churchill. This will be examined in greater detail below but to dismiss the significance of the 1942 Movement altogether is not a serious and independent reading of history as claimed by Shrivastava.

For decades, a recurring theme in Hindutva discourse has been to downplay the significance of the 1942 Movement and recast India’s freedom struggle as a contest between competing movements. It serves a broader political purpose. This framing, first, diminishes the mass, cross-community, non-violent, anti-imperialist, and secular civil disobedience popularly associated with Gandhi and Nehru, and second, undermines the idea of a secular, democratic republic that emerged from it- a constitutional vision that is at odds with the ideological project of the RSS, and affiliated Hindutva organisations.

The push to diminish 1942 today comes from the political tradition that did not participate in and in some documented instances actively counselled against that very Movement.

What was the Quit India Movement?

In protest against the British decision to involve India in World War- II, without consulting Indian political leaders, the Congress ministries in the provinces resigned from office. By contrast, V.D. Savarkar, then president of the Hindu Mahasabha, had met Viceroy Linlithgow in October 1939 and called for Hindu-British cooperation. The Hindu Mahasabha, Savarkar even went on to say, “favoured an unambiguous undertaking of dominion status at the end of the war.” He also offered that the Hindu Mahasabha would replace the Congress in provincial governments if the Congress ministries resigned. Reported in the National Herald.

The failure of the Cripps Mission in 1942 had intensified public discontent with British rule. Until then, Gandhi had largely followed a policy of avoiding actions that would hinder the British war effort. Following the collapse of the Cripps negotiations, however, he called for an open non-violent revolution. On July 14, 1942, the Congress Working Committee adopted a resolution declaring that the immediate end of British rule was essential not only for India’s freedom but also for the success of the Allied cause. The Quit India Resolution generated widespread enthusiasm across the country.

Meanwhile, RSS speakers had urged members to stay away from the Congress-led agitation, and these instructions, according to the British Home Department, were duly followed. Syama Prasad Mookerjee, a Hindu Mahasabha leader and minister in the undivided Bengal government, went a step further when in July 1942, he wrote to the British Governor of Bengal advising on measures to suppress the Quit India Movement in the province while arguing that Indians should continue to place their trust in the British for the region’s defence.

Gandhi was entrusted with leading the movement. Addressing a gathering, he said “There is a mantra, a short one, that I give you. You imprint it on your heart and let every breath of yours give an expression to it. The mantra is ‘do or die’. We shall either be free or die in the attempt …. Every one of you from this moment consider himself a free man or woman and even act as if you are free and no longer under the heel of this imperialism.”

The Congress urged people to undertake ten forms of non-violent resistance which included refraining from any commercial transactions with the British or the colonial government, displaying the tricolour on every home and window, boycotting cinema halls on the ground that the proceeds benefited the colonial administration, avoiding the courts, refusing to purchase foreign goods, withdrawing money from government banks, socially boycotting those who served the British government, avoiding any transactions that required recourse to colonial courts, leaving cities for villages, and ensuring that grain and other produce remained with the peasantry.

Subhas Chandra Bose, broadcasting from Azad Hind Radio on August 17, 1942, himself did not dismiss it and called it “non-violent guerrilla warfare,” and told listeners the “administrative machinery can be brought to a standstill” if the campaign continued. Bose, whom Shrivastva implicitly elevates over Gandhi, was on record treating 1942 as a serious and continuing front in the freedom struggle, not a failure to be measured against Congress.

What was the impact of the Quit India Movement?

Over 60,000 people were arrested by the end of 1943 alone, mass fines were levied, and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging. Official casualty figures stood at 1,028 dead while Nehru’s own estimate put the toll closer to 10,000. Many national leaders went underground and continued their struggle by broadcasting messages over the clandestine radio stations, distributing pamphlets and establishing parallel governments. The underground Congress Radio run by Usha Mehta during Quit India recorded messages from Gandhi and other leaders, moving location to location to dodge authorities. It reported on events from every nook and corner of the country and was the first to inform the nation about the Chittagong raid, the atrocities in Ashti and Chimur, and the strike in Jamshedpur. It operated for nearly three months before their arrest in November 1942. When the police arrived, the programme was coming to an end with Vande Mataram playing. Upon being asked to stop the record, Mehta reportedly commanded the police to stand at attention for the national song. The film Ae Watan Mere Watan directed by Kannan Iyer was a fictionalised tribute to Mehta and the historic Congress Radio that kept the Quit India flame alive against overwhelming odds.

Fifty-seven battalions of the British Army, alongside the entire police force, were deployed to suppress the movement. The sabotage of communications was so extensive that ground forces often could not reach certain areas, leading the Viceroy Linlithgow to suggest machine-gunning mobs from the air to regain control.

While the revolt was underway, Viceroy wrote a telegram to Churchill, the then Prime Minister:

“I am engaged here in meeting by far the most serious rebellion since that of 1857, the gravity and extent of which we have so far concealed from the world for reasons of military security. Mob violence remains rampant over large tracts of the countryside and I am by no means confident that we may not see in September a formidable attempt to renew this widespread sabotage of our war effort. The lives of Europeans in outlying places are in jeopardy.”

Contrary to his public pronouncements, Churchill gloomily disclosed to King George VI at one of their Tuesday luncheons in July 1942 that “the idea of the transfer of power in India had become an admitted inevitability in the minds of the British Party leaders.”

The movement’s structure, once its leadership was arrested within 24 hours, became spontaneous and largely leaderless. Parallel governments were established and functioned for extended periods.  In Ballia, UP, protestors overthrew the district administration and freed prisoners; it took the British weeks to reassert control. Railway lines, telegraph wires, and government buildings across the country were targeted to paralyse the war effort. The British kept a battleship on standby, reportedly to remove Gandhi and Congress leaders from India entirely, a step they ultimately judged too risky to take.

Exposing the Distortion: Why Attlee?

Like Shrivastava, many have relied on a purported statement by former British Prime Minister Clement Attlee to downplay the significance of the Quit India Movement. The claim originates from a second-hand account written in 1976 by P.V. Chakraborty, former Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, who recounted a conversation he claimed to have had with Attlee during the latter’s visit to India in 1956. According to Chakraborty, Attlee identified the activities of the Indian National Army and the Royal Indian Navy Mutiny as the principal reasons for Britain’s withdrawal. “When asked about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s 1942 movement, Attlee’s lips widened in a smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, ‘Minimal’.”

But why Attlee? This is the question that is never asked, and it deserves scrutiny.

Attlee was the British Labour Prime Minister from 1945 to 1951 the man who, as head of the postwar British government, oversaw and ultimately signed off on India’s independence in 1947. He was not the incumbent prime minister when Quit India Movement took place and therefore, his assessment of the movement’s impact is questionable. The argument asks one to accept a private, unverifiable, retrospective opinion as the authoritative verdict on which Indian freedom movement “really” mattered while dismissing Linlithgow’s real-time telegram, Churchill’s statement to the King, Bose’s real-time broadcasts, and the testimony of Indians who lived through the movement, as insufficient.

In fact, according to Churchill, the Attlee government was from the outset keen to leave India as soon as possible, regardless of the political situation. On December 12, 1946 he deplored “the ruthless logic to quit India regardless of what may happen there.”

But a moot question here should or ought to be, should we as Indians living in an India free of colonial yoke rely on colonial documentation and sources? Or seek independent assessments and verifications of how India and Indians achieved freedom from centuries of exploitative British rule?

No serious historian claims 1942 alone delivered independence in isolation. The Indian National Army trials, the Royal Indian Navy Mutiny, and Britain’s post-war financial exhaustion were all real and significant pressures, arguably the more immediate triggers of the 1947 transfer of power. That is a defensible historical position. But there is a wide gap between ‘1942 was not the sole cause’ and ‘1942 was a flop with no contribution’ According to Bipan Chandra, the INA’s public sympathy and the 1946 mutiny did not emerge in a vacuum and were given ‘fillip’ by the anti-imperialist sentiment and mass mobilisation that 1942 had already built. The movements were links in a chain, not rivals competing for sole credit. “After Quit India there cou1d be no retreat. Any future negotiations with the British Government could only be on the manner of the transfer of power. Independence was no longer a matter of bargain. And this became amply clear after the War,” Chandra wrote.

As for Aruna Asaf Ali, a figure Shrivastava names as having accepted the movement was a flop, is remembered specifically as the movement’s defining figure for hoisting the flag at Gowalia Tank.

Why This Matters

Reducing India’s freedom struggle to delegitimise the mass, cross-community, non-violent civil disobedience associated with Gandhi and the Congress follows a broader pattern in which organisations that have documented, historically-recorded records of aloofness from or active opposition to the 1942 movement now seek to rewrite it as inconsequential, while elevating alternative narratives more compatible with their own political lineage.

Acharya Kriplani (who was INC President in 1946-47) said, ‘It is my opinion that India could not have achieved its independence, but for the accession of strength which the nation received by the successive struggles started by Gandhiji. A nation which could throw a challenge to the Empire at a time when the armies of all the Allies were on Indian soil could no more be held in thraldom.’  Reported in Janata Weekly.

RS Sharma, Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, Ramchandra Guha, and such historians Shrivastava has moved to discredit and insult without engaging their actual, published arguments, have also been separately accused in the current political establishment of distorting history through the education system.

But as Shrivastava claims, “All the letters of the leaders, all the books of the leaders, all the newspapers, reporters, the diaries of the British officers, the letters of the British officers, everything is in the National Archives. Take a look at it, the truth will be revealed.”

Sources that are interesting to examine also are:

Several American journalists famously covered Mahatma Gandhi, most notably United Press correspondent Webb Miller, who provided worldwide eyewitness accounts of the 1930 Salt Satyagraha. Other prominent figures include Louis Fischer, who spent a week at Gandhi’s ashram in 1942, and Chicago Tribune reporter William L. Shirer

The definitive account of the Congress Underground Radio was documented by historian and academic Dr. Usha Thakkar in her book, Congress Radio: Usha Mehta and the Underground Radio Station of 1942, published by Penguin Random House India. [1, 2]

National Archives of India (NAI): Located in New Delhi, the NAI holds the Home Political Department files that contain intercepted correspondence, censorship reports, and data on the suppression of the “Secret Congress Radio” spearheaded by Usha Mehta. [1, 2, 3]

The film based on the historic Congress Radio is Ae Watan Mere Watan. Directed by Kannan Iyer, the 2024 Hindi-language historical thriller stars Sara Ali Khan as Usha Mehta, a 22-year-old college student in Mumbai who operated an underground, anti-British radio station during the Quit India movement of 1942  For many in Assam, citizenship isn’t a birthright taken for granted—it’s a legal battle fought after decades of living in the only home they’ve ever known.

Remembering the courageous Aruna Asaf Ali today. Her historic act of hoisting the Indian flag at Gowalia Tank during the Quit India Movement remains a powerful symbol of defiance.

Readers encountering this argument should ask questions: What is the primary source? Is it contemporaneous or retrospective? And who benefits from the comparison being drawn?

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this resource has been worked on by Tanishka Shah)

Related:

How Hindutva forces colluded with both the British & Jinnah against the historic ‘Quit India’ movement: Archives

Past and Prejudice

The post Debunking the ‘Quit India Was Useless’ Myth appeared first on SabrangIndia.

From Azad Maidan to Shivaji Park and Dadar’s Chaityabhoomi, protesters gathered to demand answers. Instead of opening channels for dialogue, the State’s response has been marked by preventive detentions, multiple FIRs naming hundreds of protesters, late-night WhatsApp notices, heavy police deployment and restrictions on public assembly.

The scale of the police action, including allegations that citizens were detained even before protests could formally begin, has raised serious questions about whether authorities are maintaining public order or attempting to suppress democratic dissent.

While the Maharashtra government has defended the crackdown, alleging that some elements attempted to exploit the movement for political purposes, the central question remains: can a democracy respond to young citizens demanding accountability by treating their presence on the streets as a law-and-order threat?

Mumbai’s protests have therefore become more than a dispute over examination irregularities. They have become a test of the State’s constitutional obligation to protect peaceful assembly and the right of citizens to question those in power.

#Mumbai | Hundreds gathered in Chembur & Shivaji Park in solidarity with protesters who were injured in Delhi during CJP’s march to Parliament.

Demands have now escalated here to resignation of PM Narendra Modi along with education minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

@tabassum_b pic.twitter.com/u4VPgxgP8p

— Scroll.in (@scroll_in) July 22, 2026

So today in Mumbai, students protests were going on Shivaji Park, Dadar near Raj Thackeray’s house.
Police picked the students and put them in bus aiming to detain them. MNS Leader Mr. Amit Thackeray and Sharmila Thackeray came in support and made the police release the… pic.twitter.com/Ho9iH7cR5J

— MNS Report English (@MNSReportEng) July 21, 2026

Breaking

Police crack down on NEET protesters in Mumbai; protesters dragged on road, detained

As youth and student protesters gathered near Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Garden in Chembur, Mumbai, chanting slogans, Mumbai Police detained multiple participants. Several photos from the… pic.twitter.com/uCp2O3kVou

— Maktoob (@MaktoobMedia) July 22, 2026

A movement finds local echo

The immediate escalation in Mumbai followed the police action against young protesters during the student-led/Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) “Sansad Chalo” march in Delhi on July 20. Thousands of demonstrators had gathered demanding accountability over alleged irregularities in competitive examinations, including NEET, and seeking the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

The march towards Parliament ended in confrontation after police stopped protesters near Parliament Street. Reports stated that protesters faced baton charges and tear gas as security forces attempted to prevent them from moving beyond barricades. The images of the crackdown triggered anger among student groups and supporters across the country, including Mumbai. Within hours, demonstrations were organised across the city.

Students, young professionals, activists, lawyers and citizens gathered not only in support of the CJP’s demands but also in protest against what they described as an excessive state response to a peaceful youth movement.

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

Mumbai’s streets see continued mobilisation despite detentions

The protests in Mumbai began gaining momentum over the weekend, with gatherings reported at Azad Maidan, Shivaji Park and Chaityabhoomi. On July 21, more than 500 people gathered at Shivaji Park demanding accountability over examination-related failures and reiterating the call for Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation, reported The Indian Express.

The protesters included students, senior citizens, working professionals and first-time demonstrators. The gathering remained largely peaceful, with slogans including:

“Dharmendra Pradhan must resign”

“Inquilab Zindabad”

“Jai Bhim”

“Vande Mataram”

Several participants told The Indian Express that their concerns had moved beyond a single examination controversy. They spoke about declining trust in public institutions, repeated paper leaks and the uncertainty faced by millions of young people preparing for competitive examinations. A working professional quoted by the newspaper said she joined the protest despite not having children because she believed the issue affected the future of an entire generation.

Shameful Act By @MumbaiPolice

Students protesting peacefully are being detained. What is wrong in demanding accountability

Officers should remember accountability will be set on all levels! pic.twitter.com/hnvKjDC0bi

— Cockroach is Back (@Cockroachisback) July 22, 2026

In Chembur, Mumbai right now. There will be similar protests in Vashi at 6 pm, Dadar at 4 pm and at Powai at 5 pm pic.twitter.com/V28Jm3qX1L

— Rana Ayyub (@RanaAyyub) July 22, 2026

Protesters detained in Mumbai

Live Updates: https://t.co/9MiFsaawxj pic.twitter.com/NtfIExXIea

— The Wire (@thewire_in) July 22, 2026

Police detentions before protest could take shape

One of the most controversial aspects of Mumbai’s response has been the allegation that police action prevented protests from even beginning. In a ground report for Outlook India, journalist Pritha Vashisth described how protesters arriving at Shivaji Park on July 21 were detained even before a large gathering had formed.

According to the report, police vehicles were positioned near the venue and individuals walking towards the location were stopped and taken away. The report described a mix of students, working professionals and ordinary citizens being detained despite not having participated in any visible disturbance.

The incident raised questions about the extent to which preventive powers can be used. Authorities relied on restrictions under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which allows executive authorities to impose preventive measures in situations where there is a threat to public peace. However, such powers cannot become a mechanism to prevent peaceful democratic assembly. Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to assemble peacefully without arms, subject to reasonable restrictions. The question emerging from Mumbai is whether the State was managing a protest or stopping one from taking place.

Hundreds booked, FIRs registered across Mumbai

The police response intensified after the demonstrations, with multiple criminal cases being registered against protesters. According to The Indian Express, Mumbai Police registered seven fresh FIRs after Monday’s demonstrations, taking the total number of FIRs linked to the NEET protests in Mumbai to 12. More than 900 people were named as accused across these cases.

The FIRs invoked provisions relating to unlawful assembly and disobedience of lawful orders. Police stated that the cases were registered because protesters had gathered without permission. The police also began issuing notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, directing accused persons to appear before investigating officers instead of being immediately arrested.

Hindustan Times reported that notices were sent to hundreds of protesters through WhatsApp, with several young participants receiving messages late at night asking them to appear before police stations. Lawyers assisting protesters criticised the scale of the action. Speaking to The Indian Express, advocate Vijay Hiremath said it was unusual for police to name such a large number of participants in protest-related FIRs. “During previous protests, they would usually name a few organisers or activists, not so many participants,” he said.

Students allege police surveillance and intimidation

Alongside FIRs and notices, student organisers alleged that they were subjected to increased police monitoring after mobilising support for the protests. Speaking to Hindustan Times, student leaders claimed they received repeated calls from different police units after circulating information about demonstrations.

Vaibhav Chopkar of the All India Students Federation (AISF) alleged that he received calls from local police stations and even the Anti-Naxal Squad after coordinating travel arrangements for students travelling from Maharashtra to Delhi for the “Chalo Sansad” march. Members of Chhatra Bharati also alleged that organisers received repeated calls questioning their activities and protest plans. Students said such monitoring created fear among young protesters, particularly those concerned that criminal cases could affect their education and careers. Lawyers supporting the protesters argued that participation in peaceful demonstrations should not become a basis for intimidating young citizens.

Legal assistance for students as cases mount

As protesters began receiving notices and facing FIRs, lawyers across Mumbai stepped in to provide assistance. Advocates visited police stations, helped students understand the legal implications of notices and advised them regarding appearances before investigating officers. Speaking to Hindustan Times, lawyer Srushti More said several notices were vague and required legal interpretation. Other lawyers argued that many detained protesters were students, women and first-time demonstrators who had not engaged in violence.

Advocate Lara Jessani criticised the use of criminal law against protesters, arguing that peaceful demonstrations should not be treated as offences. She questioned the registration of cases across multiple police jurisdictions and alleged that legal provisions meant to protect citizens were being used to discourage participation.

Political support arrives, but students maintain independence

The protests also received political backing in Maharashtra. Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray criticised the police action against protesters in Delhi and questioned why the government was defending the Education Minister despite growing public anger. In a statement reported by Mid-Day, Thackeray argued that the protests reflected broader dissatisfaction over education, inflation, environmental concerns and economic policies. MNS workers and leaders participated in demonstrations at Shivaji Park, where Raj Thackeray’s wife Sharmila Thackeray also joined protesters.

https://x.com/RajThackeray/status/2079507814142410812

Shiv Sena (UBT) also organised demonstrations, including a gathering in Dongri. Party leader Aaditya Thackeray criticised the Delhi crackdown, describing it as “the most frightening face of BJP rule”, according to The Indian Express. He accused the Centre of failing to engage with protesting students and compared the response to previous instances where protest movements were allegedly labelled as threats. Aaditya Thackeray also announced legal assistance for students and activists facing FIRs or notices.

वन नेशन, वन इमोशन!

२४ जुलै, शुक्रवार रोजी छत्रपती शिवाजी महाराज पार्क येथे आमच्यासोबत सामील व्हा! दुपारी ४ वाजल्यापासून आपण सर्वजण तिरंग्याखाली एकत्र येऊया आणि सायंकाळी ५ वाजता आपले राष्ट्रगीत गाऊया.

दिल्लीतील अमानुष दडपशाही आणि देशभरातील विद्यार्थ्यांच्या अटकेच्या…

— Aaditya Thackeray (@AUThackeray) July 22, 2026

One Nation, One Emotion: standing with our young India! @ShivSenaUBT_ President Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray ji visited Jantar Mantar today to meet @abhijeet_dipke .

He has stood firmly with @Wangchuk66 and Abhijeet since day one, as they fight for young Indians! https://t.co/lakMzU5laP

— Aaditya Thackeray (@AUThackeray) July 21, 2026

Vanchit Bahujan Aaghadi (VBA) chief Prakash Ambedkar called for a Maharashtra bandh on July 23 in support of the protesting students and against the police action during the demonstration.  Announcing the bandh, Ambedkar said, “In light of the brutal attack and lathi-charge on students protesting peacefully in Delhi, Vanchit Bahujan Aaghadi has called for a Maharashtra Bandh on July 23 in support of the students and in protest against the police brutality.” His appeal sought to bring together like-minded political groups and citizens against what he described as the suppression of a peaceful student movement.

काल दिल्लीत शांततापूर्ण आंदोलन करणाऱ्या विद्यार्थ्यांवर झालेल्या अमानुष हल्ल्याच्या आणि लाठीचार्जच्या पार्श्वभूमीवर, त्या विद्यार्थ्यांच्या समर्थनार्थ आणि पोलिसांच्या या दडपशाहीचा निषेध करण्यासाठी ‘वंचित बहुजन आघाडी’ने २३ जुलै रोजी ‘महाराष्ट्र बंद’ची हाक दिली आहे.

मी सर्व… https://t.co/5MHwdJGn14

— Prakash Ambedkar (@Prksh_Ambedkar) July 21, 2026

Government’s Defence: “Some Elements Infiltrated the Protest”

Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis defended the government’s response while acknowledging that many protesters had genuine concerns. Reported by Deccan Herald, Fadnavis said that peaceful protest was a democratic right and would be allowed if conducted with permission. However, he alleged that some elements had entered the CJP agitation with their own agendas.

According to a PTI report, Fadnavis said: “I do not want to make allegations against all the protesters. Some of them may be participating with good intentions.”

At the same time, he claimed that certain groups had attempted to use the movement to create political unrest.

He said: “Some people have entered the protest only to pursue their own agenda. Some of them have nothing to do with NEET and only want to create unrest.”

Fadnavis also claimed that some participants were unaware of the details of the examination controversy. The Chief Minister defended police action in Delhi, stating that authorities had exercised restraint and that intervention was necessary to prevent larger incidents. He alleged that some political organisations were attempting to exploit the agitation for political gains.

The Core Question: Maintaining order or criminalising dissent?

The Maharashtra government has maintained that its actions were necessary to prevent disorder and ensure public safety. The protesters, however, argue that the response itself has become disproportionate.

The contrast between the peaceful nature of most Mumbai demonstrations and the scale of police action has raised questions about whether ordinary citizens are being discouraged from participating in democratic protest. The issue is not merely whether organisers obtained permissions or whether authorities have powers to regulate assemblies. The larger constitutional question is how those powers are exercised.

A democracy allows governments to regulate protests. But regulation cannot become a substitute for engagement.  In Mumbai, young citizens returned to the streets despite detentions, FIRs and notices because their concerns were not limited to one examination or one demand. They were asking a more fundamental question: when institutions affecting millions of young people fail, who is accountable? And when those young people take to the streets demanding answers, how should a democracy respond?

Related:

The exam crisis that became a battle for accountability

India–US trade deal faces mounting resistance as farmers intensify protests

From Protest to Petition: Maharashtra’s Public Safety Act in the dock

May-June 2026: Youth Congress nationwide protests challenge education system collapse under Modi government, media gives cold shoulder?

Noida Protest 2026: A labour uprising the state refused to understand

NSA slapped on journalist, DU scholar in Noida workers’ protest case amid allegations of crackdown on dissent

The post Mumbai stands with students, but the state pushes back appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Demonstrations in areas including Chaityabhoomi, Dadar and Shivaji Park were met with heavy police deployment, barricading and preventive action. While the police maintained that the gatherings were unauthorised and necessary measures were taken to prevent breaches of peace, protesters alleged that peaceful demonstrations were being criminalised through detentions and legal proceedings.

The movement of youth, that began with a call from the newly formed Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) has been amplified from the start by youth with no affiliation, youth associated with the CPI’s All India Students Federation, CPI-M’s SFI and AISA. Begun as as a youth-led protest against alleged irregularities in competitive examinations, including the NEET-UG controversy, has expanded into a broader demand for accountability, education reforms and responsibility from authorities over repeated failures affecting students. The events in Mumbai have now shifted attention to a larger question: whether administrative restrictions and criminal law are being used proportionately to regulate public protest.

Detailed piece on the Delhi protest and the excessive state action may be read here.

Mumbai Police impose prohibitory orders amid protests

On July 20, the Mumbai Police issued orders prohibiting assemblies of five or more persons in public places across the city from July 23 to August 6. The order also restricted processions, use of loudspeakers, musical instruments and other forms of public gatherings, citing apprehensions of breach of peace and disturbance to public tranquillity.

According to a report by The Economic Times, the restrictions were imposed shortly after a protest organised by the Sharad Pawar-led Nationalist Congress Party (SP) outside Mumbai University against the police action during the Student-CJP’s march to Parliament and Wangchuk’s removal from Jantar Mantar.

The police order invoked concerns of maintaining public order, but the timing of the restrictions, coming immediately after protests against police action in Delhi, raised concerns among civil society groups over whether broad preventive measures were being used to restrict constitutionally protected forms of dissent. The restrictions were imposed under the jurisdiction of the Mumbai Police Commissioner and remained applicable from midnight of July 23 until August 6.

Chaityabhoomi protests: Hundreds detained, FIRs registered

On July 20, hundreds of students and activists gathered near Chaityabhoomi in Dadar to express solidarity with the CJP movement and protest against alleged examination irregularities and the handling of Wangchuk’s hunger strike.

According to The Indian Express, the protest was organised under the banner of Mumbai Against Suppression of Students (MASS), with participation from student organisations including the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), All India Students’ Federation (AISF), Aamchi Padhai Aamchi Ladai and other youth groups. Protesters demanded accountability over alleged NEET irregularities and the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

Police barricaded roads leading towards Chaityabhoomi and detained protesters attempting to reach the site. Organisers claimed that around 200 people were detained and taken to different police stations, including Sion, Dadar, Mahim and Worli.

Image: freepressjournal.in

The police, however, maintained that no permission had been granted for the protest. Deputy Commissioner of Police Mahendra Pandit stated that since the gathering proceeded despite denial of permission, action under law was being initiated.

The detentions were criticised by protesters, who alleged that peaceful demonstrators were prevented from exercising their right to assemble. Several participants told the media that they were detained despite carrying placards and raising slogans peacefully.

A protester quoted by The Indian Express said that students were demanding accountability over repeated examination failures and alleged that instead of addressing their concerns, authorities were detaining those raising questions.

FIRs against protesters and organisers

Following the protests, Mumbai Police registered multiple FIRs against demonstrators. The Indian Express reported that cases were registered against more than 900 people in connection with protests across Mumbai, including the largest FIR at Shivaji Park Police Station where over 600 protesters were named.

The FIRs invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) relating to unlawful assembly, disobedience of orders issued by public servants and obstruction of officials performing their duties. The police said they were examining CCTV footage, drone visuals and videos recorded during demonstrations to identify more participants.

Separately, Scroll reported that Mumbai Police registered three FIRs against more than 50 protesters following a solidarity demonstration near Chaityabhoomi. The cases invoked provisions relating to unlawful assembly, violation of prohibitory orders and offences under the Maharashtra Police Act.

The police argued that the protests were unauthorised and that restrictions were already in place. Protesters, however, questioned whether requiring prior permission could become a mechanism to prevent any inconvenient public mobilisation.

Image: indianexpress.com

Shivaji Park protest and political participation

The police action followed an earlier gathering at Shivaji Park on July 19, where hundreds assembled after Wangchuk’s removal from Jantar Mantar. The protest saw participation from Shiv Sena (UBT) president Uddhav Thackeray, who expressed solidarity with the movement and criticised the government’s handling of the agitation.

The Mumbai Police registered a case against organisers of the Shivaji Park gathering, stating that no permission had been granted for the demonstration. The Indian Express reported that the FIR was registered for alleged unlawful assembly. Police also registered cases linked to earlier demonstrations near Mantralaya and the Press Club, including against political workers and activists.

Notices issued to some detainees, while others await intimation

Following the detentions during the Mumbai protests, the legal status of several participants remained unclear. Those detained at Kalachowki Police Station were issued notice intimations under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), requiring them to comply with procedural requirements, though they were not called to the police station on the day of issuance.

Meanwhile, detainees taken to Worli Police Station had not received any such notices at the time of reporting. The absence of uniform communication regarding the legal status of those detained has added to concerns among protesters and organisers over the manner in which preventive action was carried out.

A heavy police presence was also reported near the water tank area close to Byculla railway station, with police vehicles stationed in the vicinity, indicating continued monitoring and deployment following the protests.

Claims of suppression and the constitutional question

The escalation in Mumbai followed the Delhi Police action during the CJP’s “Chalo Sansad” march on July 20, where protesters attempting to move towards Parliament were dispersed using tear gas and batons. The Delhi action became a flashpoint, with videos circulating online showing police using force against demonstrators.

In Mumbai, organisations involved in the supportive protests, criticised the detentions, stating on social media that peaceful protest was a democratic right and accusing authorities of attempting to suppress a youth movement. The organisation’s founder Abhijeet Dipke also apologised to injured supporters following clashes in Delhi and alleged that protesters, including women participants, faced excessive force.

The Maharashtra government, however, defended police action. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said peaceful protests were constitutionally protected but argued that demonstrations without permission or those involving violence could not be accepted. He also alleged that some groups had attempted to use the agitation for unrelated political purposes, as per the Mid-Day report.

Political protests over police action

The police response itself became a subject of protest. The Sharad Pawar-led NCP (SP) organised a demonstration outside Mumbai University, condemning the action against CJP protesters in Delhi and Mumbai. Party leaders demanded the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over alleged examination failures and paper leaks.

According to reports carried by Telangana Today, NCP (SP) leaders accused authorities of suppressing democratic dissent and warned that youth movements would continue if accountability was not addressed.

A widening conflict over protest rights

The police response in Mumbai has brought into focus a familiar pattern in the State’s approach to dissent: administrative restrictions, preventive policing and criminal proceedings deployed before protests can fully unfold. While authorities have justified their actions on grounds of maintaining public order and enforcing permission requirements, the cumulative effect of prohibitory orders, mass detentions, extensive police deployment and multiple FIRs has been to significantly curtail public assembly.

At the heart of the issue is not simply whether permission was obtained for individual protests, but whether procedural requirements are increasingly being used to make the exercise of the constitutional right to peaceful assembly contingent on executive approval. When preventive detention, criminal prosecution and citywide restrictions become the primary response to peaceful mobilisation, the space for democratic dissent inevitably narrows.

What began as a youth-led movement demanding accountability for repeated failures in India’s examination system has, through the State’s response, become a wider test of democratic freedoms. The questions raised by students over examination integrity now sit alongside equally pressing questions about whether governments are responding to public criticism through engagement or through policing. As solidarity protests continue to attract criminal cases and heightened surveillance, the debate is no longer confined to education reforms—it is increasingly about whether constitutional rights can be meaningfully exercised when peaceful protest itself is treated as a law-and-order threat.

Related:

The exam crisis that became a battle for accountability

India–US trade deal faces mounting resistance as farmers intensify protests

From Protest to Petition: Maharashtra’s Public Safety Act in the dock

May-June 2026: Youth Congress nationwide protests challenge education system collapse under Modi government, media gives cold shoulder?

Noida Protest 2026: A labour uprising the state refused to understand

NSA slapped on journalist, DU scholar in Noida workers’ protest case amid allegations of crackdown on dissent

The post Brute Police Action: Mumbai’s crackdown on protestors in solidarity with CJP & Student Groups, AISF, SFI & AISA appeared first on SabrangIndia.

JUST IN | Massive crowds several thousands strong gathered at Jantar Mantar as mobile internet was shut down in parts of central Delhi. Protesters have had sporadic clashes with authorities according to emerging visuals. Even as security forces tried to hold the crowds at bay,… pic.twitter.com/PBgnPpefiZ

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) July 20, 2026

Visuals from the CJP protest at Jantar Mantar.

Tensions escalated as police moved in on protesters. These are moments captured from the ground, documenting the events as they unfolded.
Video: @nvm_nissss #JantarMantar #CJP #Delhi #GroundReport pic.twitter.com/CdukMeUcoa

— Velox India (@VeloxIndia) July 20, 2026

Protestors gather at the Jantar Mantar, in Delhi, as Cockroach Janta Party aims march to Parliament on July 20, 2026, to press for education reforms.

Meanwhile, no permission has been granted for the march planned by the CJP to Parliament on July 20, when both houses will… pic.twitter.com/Gxmg0A763T

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) July 20, 2026

The day unfolded against the backdrop of an intensifying political and legal battle. Sonam Wangchuk, who had become one of the most prominent face of the agitation, remained on hunger strike under medical supervision at Safdarjung Hospital after being removed from Jantar Mantar on July 18. Even after his hospitalisation, Wangchuk stated that he would continue his fast until the government took accountability for recent failures in the education system, particularly alleged examination irregularities and question paper leaks, or until elected representatives assured him that the issues would be raised in Parliament.

Alongside Sonam Wangchuk’s fast, the protest also witnessed a sustained hunger strike by student activists associated with the All India Students’ Association (AISA). Three students,  Neha, Manish and Aameen, continued their indefinite fast in solidarity with the wider movement, highlighting the direct impact that examination failures have had on young aspirants. Their protest lasted 23 days before they decided to conclude the fast on July 20 following an appeal from a delegation comprising parliamentarians, civil society representatives and public figures, who urged them to continue the struggle through parliamentary intervention and public campaigns.

Meanwhile, as protesters attempted to march towards Parliament, Delhi witnessed a major security mobilisation, with barricades, police deployment, paramilitary forces and restrictions on movement around central areas. Reports of state violence, allegations of force against protesters and the police denial of such allegations intensified the debate over the State’s handling of peaceful dissent. The administration justified its actions on grounds of public order and Parliament security, while protesters argued that preventive restrictions were being used to silence a movement demanding accountability.

And it has finally begun.

Security personnel using lathicharge to disperse crowd at CJP protest in Delhi. pic.twitter.com/JYTNKLq0Tj

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) July 20, 2026

#WATCH | Delhi | Protesters gathered for CJP’s protest march clash with RPF personnel at Jantar Mantar; RPF personnel & police use lathis for crowd control pic.twitter.com/gijaCjJksW

— ANI (@ANI) July 20, 2026

VIDEO | CJP March: Protesters run amok, riot control units fire teargas near Patel Chowk.

(Full video available on PTI Videos – https://t.co/n147TvrpG7) pic.twitter.com/P5E5ATteiT

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) July 20, 2026

Delhi : Security intensified outside Parliament amid CJP protest and threats from the protesters. pic.twitter.com/QUSNG2DDY4

— News Arena India (@NewsArenaIndia) July 20, 2026

The developments of July 20 therefore marked a decisive moment in the agitation. What began as a demand from students for answers over the credibility of India’s examination system had evolved into a larger constitutional contest — involving the right to peaceful protest, the State’s power to regulate public assemblies, the autonomy of an individual undertaking a hunger strike, and the responsibility of democratic institutions to respond to public grievances.

The Origins: A movement born out of the NEET crisis

The immediate trigger for the mobilisation was the controversy surrounding the NEET-UG 2026 examination held on May 3, 2026. Allegations of a paper leak and compromise of examination integrity led the National Testing Agency to cancel the examination on May 12, 2026 and announce a fresh examination, which was subsequently conducted on June 21, 2026.

The National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG) determines admission to medical colleges across the country and is viewed by lakhs of aspirants as a decisive examination shaping their academic and professional future. Allegations of malpractice and procedural failures therefore generated widespread anger among students, parents and civil society groups who questioned whether the examination system had failed to protect fairness and merit.

The controversy acquired a deeper human dimension as reports emerged of severe distress among students, including suicides allegedly linked to examination-related pressures and uncertainty surrounding the results. For many protesters, the issue was not limited to a single examination irregularity but reflected a larger crisis of accountability in India’s competitive examination system.

Against this backdrop, students and civil society groups began mobilising, demanding transparency, an impartial investigation into the alleged irregularities, accountability of those responsible, and measures to restore confidence in the examination process.

The movement found a visible presence at Jantar Mantar, a historic site of democratic protest in New Delhi. Located within close proximity to Parliament, Jantar Mantar has for decades served as a space where citizens, students, workers and civil society organisations have brought grievances directly into the public sphere.

For the protesters, gathering at Jantar Mantar was not merely an act of demonstration. It represented a constitutional appeal to the State — a demand that institutions responsible for administering examinations affecting millions of young people must answer questions of fairness, transparency and accountability.

Sonam Wangchuk enters the movement

Sonam Wangchuk’s decision to join the protest brought further national attention to a mobilisation that had already grown into a significant movement involving students, parents, civil society groups and supporters across the country. His decision to begin an indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar on June 28, 2026 became one of the defining moment in the agitation. Wangchuk stated that his fast was aimed at securing accountability for recent failures affecting students, including alleged examination irregularities and question paper leaks. However, the articulation of his demands evolved during the course of the protest. While the wider CJP-led mobilisation had prominently raised the demand for the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, Wangchuk’s later conditions for ending the fast focused primarily on government acknowledgement of failures in the education system, parliamentary discussion on education accountability, and assurances from elected representatives that reforms would be taken up.

His entry into the agitation was significant because hunger strikes in India carry a long political and constitutional history. From Mahatma Gandhi’s satyagrahas to later public movements, fasting has frequently been used as a method of moral persuasion rather than physical confrontation.

Wangchuk began his indefinite hunger strike on June 28, 2026, at Jantar Mantar. According to Indian Express reports, he continued the fast for more than 21 days, maintaining that his objective was to compel political accountability rather than engage in confrontation with the State.  His decision immediately elevated the visibility of the protest. Supporters viewed the hunger strike as an expression of Gandhian resistance — a voluntary sacrifice intended to draw attention to institutional failure.

The government’s response, however, increasingly centred around a different concern: the deterioration of Wangchuk’s health and the State’s responsibility to prevent serious medical harm. That conflict would eventually become the central legal issue before the Delhi High Court.

Three Weeks of Escalation: From local protest to national attention

For nearly three weeks, the protest site at Jantar Mantar gradually became a focal point of public mobilisation. The early phase was marked by daily gatherings, student participation, speeches and solidarity visits. Over time, the presence of Wangchuk’s hunger strike attracted wider attention from civil society groups, public personalities and political figures.

The movement’s messaging expanded beyond the immediate examination controversy. It increasingly raised questions about:

• accountability of public institutions;
• transparency in governance;
• the treatment of students affected by systemic failures;
• the responsiveness of elected representatives.

The symbolism of an elderly activist undertaking a prolonged fast outside Parliament added further political weight. By mid-July, the protest had become a significant public mobilisation rather than an isolated demonstration. Media reports noted that supporters had planned a march towards Parliament during the Monsoon Session, increasing administrative concern over crowd management and law-and-order issues.

The State’s Intervention: From silence to medical enforcement

As Sonam Wangchuk’s indefinite hunger strike entered its third week, the nature of the State’s response came under increasing scrutiny. The protest was not merely about the continuation of a fast; it was rooted in demands for accountability over the NEET examination crisis, alleged failures in ensuring the integrity of the examination process, and the distress faced by thousands of students whose academic futures had been affected.

During the initial phase of the protest, the authorities did not undertake any visible intervention to address these larger concerns or engage meaningfully with the demands being raised by students and civil society groups. Despite Wangchuk’s prolonged fast at Jantar Mantar and growing public attention, the administration did not immediately attempt to remove him from the protest site or directly intervene in the course of the agitation.

The State’s intervention came later, primarily through the lens of Wangchuk’s health condition. This shift — from limited engagement with the substantive demands of the movement to active intervention on medical grounds — became one of the central issues of contestation before the Delhi High Court.

Instead of directly interacting with the protester, the matter reached the Delhi High Court through proceedings concerning medical monitoring of Wangchuk’s condition. The Court’s intervention at that stage was limited: it sought to ensure that his health was being regularly monitored and that necessary medical assistance remained available. Crucially, the Court did not direct the termination of the hunger strike. It did not authorise the forcible removal of Wangchuk from Jantar Mantar or permit the State to override his expressed choice regarding the continuation of his protest.

The petitioners later argued that the administration transformed a limited judicial direction regarding medical supervision into a justification for a far more intrusive action — physically removing Wangchuk from the protest site and shifting him to a hospital against the wishes of those supporting the protest. The controversy therefore was not merely about medical care; it was about the scope of executive power.

The July 18: Removal from Jantar Mantar

On July 18, after Wangchuk had completed more than three weeks of fasting, Delhi Police removed him from the Jantar Mantar protest site and shifted him to Safdarjung Hospital. The police justified the action on medical grounds, stating that Wangchuk’s condition had deteriorated and that the intervention was undertaken to protect his health. Reports by The Indian Express stated that police relied on medical advice and referred to the earlier proceedings before the Delhi High Court while explaining the decision. However, the manner of the removal became the immediate subject of controversy.

Protesters alleged that the police action amounted to the forced removal of a peaceful demonstrator and argued that the State had used health concerns as a justification to break up the protest. Visuals from the site showed heavy police presence and officers surrounding Wangchuk during the transfer, leading supporters to allege the use of unnecessary force. The police disputed these allegations, maintaining that the action was carried out with restraint and that intervention became necessary after resistance from protesters.

The State defended its actions on the ground that it was not attempting to suppress dissent but fulfilling its constitutional obligation to protect life. According to the authorities, once medical concerns became serious, allowing the fast to continue without intervention would have amounted to neglect of a citizen’s welfare. The protesters, however, viewed the intervention differently.

They argued that Wangchuk was a consenting adult exercising a political choice and that the State had converted a concern for health into an instrument to interrupt a lawful protest. In their view, the right to peaceful dissent includes the freedom to choose the form and intensity of protest, including voluntary fasting.

The dispute therefore brought three constitutional guarantees into direct tension:

• Article 19(1)(a): the freedom of speech and expression, which includes political communication and dissent;
• Article 19(1)(b): the right to assemble peacefully;
• Article 21: the right to life and personal liberty, which includes bodily autonomy and decisional freedom.

The question before the Court was not whether the State valued life. The question was whether the State could protect life by overriding the very autonomy that constitutional liberty seeks to preserve.

July 19: Gitanjali Angmo’s moves Delhi HC to challenge state overreach

After Wangchuk was shifted to hospital, Dr Gitanjali Angmo approached the Delhi High Court challenging the manner in which he was removed from Jantar Mantar. As per LiveLaw, the petition raised several concerns:

• alleged use of force by police;
• denial of access to family members, lawyers and preferred doctors;
• shifting Wangchuk to a medical facility without his consent;
• interference with his choice of medical treatment;
• violation of bodily autonomy.

The petition did not argue that the State had no interest in Wangchuk’s health.

Rather, it questioned whether that interest could override an adult citizen’s voluntary decision regarding his own body. The constitutional argument was anchored in the Supreme Court’s evolving jurisprudence on privacy and autonomy. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised privacy as intrinsic to liberty under Article 21, including decisional autonomy and the ability of individuals to make personal choices.

The petitioners argued that this principle extended to the choice of undertaking a hunger strike — a method of political expression historically associated with non-violent resistance. Appearing for Dr Angmo, senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the State could not convert concern for health into a justification for overriding individual autonomy. As per Livelaw, his submission was that Wangchuk was a conscious adult who had voluntarily chosen the method of protest. The issue, he argued, was not whether fasting was medically advisable. The issue was whether the State could impose its own assessment of an individual’s welfare over that individual’s own decision.

Sibal questioned the circumstances surrounding Wangchuk’s removal from Jantar Mantar and argued that a peaceful protester could not be treated as someone incapable of making decisions merely because the State disagreed with those decisions.

The argument placed the case within the broader constitutional debate surrounding:

• informed consent;
• medical autonomy;
• dignity under Article 21;
• the right to dissent.

The petitioners emphasised that democratic rights become meaningful precisely when citizens are allowed to adopt unpopular or inconvenient forms of protest.

The state’s position: Representing the government, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) defended the police action. The State’s position was that the removal was not an attempt to suppress the protest but a necessary intervention to protect Wangchuk’s life. The ASG argued that the authorities were acting on medical advice and that the State could not remain passive when a person’s health was deteriorating after an extended fast. The government’s argument rested on a different understanding of Article 21.

While the petitioners relied on Article 21 as a guarantee of autonomy and choice, the State relied on Article 21 as imposing a positive obligation to protect life.

The government’s submission effectively was: A citizen’s autonomy is important, but the State cannot ignore a situation where there is a serious risk to life.

The court’s balancing act: The proceedings before Justice Mini Pushkarna exposed a difficult constitutional contradiction: a State that claims to protect life may, in doing so, risk undermining the very liberty that gives democratic protest its meaning.

The central issue before the Court was not simply whether Sonam Wangchuk required medical attention. It was whether the State could use concern for his health as a basis to override the choice of an adult citizen who had voluntarily adopted hunger strike as a form of political expression.

The petitioners’ argument went to the heart of the controversy — that the State had not acted with the same urgency when the protesters were demanding accountability over the NEET examination crisis, but became interventionist when it sought to regulate the manner in which that protest was being conducted. The grievance was not that the State cared about Wangchuk’s health; it was that the State appeared willing to engage with the physical consequences of the protest while remaining unresponsive to the institutional failures that had triggered it.

A crucial aspect of the challenge was the alleged expansion of the Delhi High Court’s earlier order. The Court’s initial intervention was limited to ensuring medical monitoring of Wangchuk’s condition. It did not direct that the hunger strike be discontinued, nor did it authorise the forcible removal of the protester from Jantar Mantar. The petitioners argued that the administration effectively converted a judicial direction intended as a safeguard into a justification for coercive State action.

The Court, however, accepted the State’s explanation that shifting Wangchuk to hospital was not arbitrary in the circumstances. It recognised that a prolonged hunger strike carries genuine medical risks and that the State cannot be expected to remain a passive observer when a person’s health is seriously compromised. Yet, this reasoning raises a larger constitutional concern.

If the State can intervene whenever it believes that an individual is making a self-harming political choice, the boundary between protection and paternalism becomes dangerously blurred. Democratic dissent is rarely comfortable. Protest movements often involve inconvenience, sacrifice and personal hardship. The constitutional protection of protest cannot depend upon whether the State considers the method of protest reasonable, appropriate or medically advisable.

A hunger strike is fundamentally different from violent or disruptive forms of protest. Its political force lies in voluntary self-denial. The protester does not impose physical harm upon others; instead, the protester places their own body at the centre of political communication. Historically, hunger strikes have been used precisely because conventional channels of accountability have failed or have been perceived to have failed.

The constitutional difficulty, therefore, was not whether the State had an interest in preserving life. It undoubtedly does. The more difficult question was whether the State could preserve life by overriding a conscious political choice made by an informed adult citizen. The controversy surrounding the administration of potassium during Wangchuk’s hospitalisation further exposed this tension. Medical intervention in such circumstances cannot be treated as a purely clinical matter. When a person’s medical condition is directly connected to an act of political protest, questions of consent, autonomy and transparency become inseparable from questions of healthcare.

The petitioners’ concern was not merely about the treatment administered. It was about who retained control over decisions affecting Wangchuk’s body after the State intervened. The State maintained that medical decisions were taken on professional advice and in response to his condition. However, the episode demonstrated the constitutional risks that arise when State power enters the doctor-patient relationship. A person does not surrender bodily autonomy merely because they become a patient.

The concerns regarding access to family members, lawyers and independent medical opinion raised an equally important issue. Wangchuk was not a person detained under criminal law. He had not been deprived of liberty through any judicial process. He was a citizen who had been participating in a public protest and was subsequently removed by State action.

In such circumstances, a hospital cannot become a space where constitutional protections are diluted. Medical care cannot operate as a zone of reduced liberty where communication, consultation and independent oversight become matters of administrative discretion.

The Court’s final approach reflected an attempt at compromise. It refused to hold the State action arbitrary and accepted the government’s justification for hospitalisation. At the same time, it did not recognise an unlimited State power to interfere with protest or personal choice. However, the larger constitutional question remains unresolved.

The danger in cases such as these is not always overt suppression of dissent. It is the possibility of a softer form of restriction — where the language of welfare, safety and protection gradually becomes a justification for limiting inconvenient political expression. Article 19 protects not only popular speech but also uncomfortable dissent. Article 21 protects not only life but also autonomy, dignity and the freedom to make personal choices. A constitutional democracy must therefore ask not merely whether State intervention is well-intentioned, but whether it is proportionate and necessary.

The Wangchuk litigation ultimately leaves behind a fundamental question: When a citizen uses their own body as the instrument of protest, does the State’s duty to protect life permit intervention — or does such intervention risk transforming protection into control?

The complete order may be viewed here:

July 20: The protest moves towards parliament

While the legal challenge over Sonam Wangchuk’s removal from Jantar Mantar was being argued before the Delhi High Court, the movement on the ground entered a new phase. The protest, which had begun around demands for accountability over the NEET examination crisis, had by then grown into a larger mobilisation involving students, civil society groups and supporters from across the country. The proposed “Chalo Sansad” march on July 20, 2026 was intended to take these demands directly to Parliament, with protesters seeking accountability over alleged examination irregularities and demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

The choice of destination was deeply symbolic. For the protesters, Parliament represented the institution answerable to citizens. The march was projected not as an attempt to obstruct legislative functioning, but as an assertion of the democratic right to place grievances before elected representatives. However, for the administration, the timing of the march — coinciding with the opening day of Parliament’s Monsoon Session — raised concerns regarding security, crowd management and the protection of high-security government installations.

By the evening of July 19, the hours preceding the march saw central Delhi transformed into a heavily controlled zone. Reporting from The Indian Express described Jantar Mantar as witnessing an unprecedented security build-up, with riot-control vehicles, barricades and large deployments of Delhi Police personnel across key areas of the capital. IE reported that more than 1,200 Delhi Police personnel were deployed around VIP areas and Delhi borders, while additional forces were positioned around Parliament and routes leading to it.

According to The Indian Express, the protest site was overflowing with students and supporters, with footpaths lined with tents housing those who had joined the hunger strike for days and weeks. Protesters gathered under banners and slogans, while volunteers prepared for the next day’s march. CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke appealed for discipline and repeatedly emphasised that the success of the protest depended on maintaining peace, conveying a message reportedly also given by Sonam Wangchuk from hospital.

The administration, however, treated the proposed march as a potential security challenge. Delhi Police stated that no permission had been sought or granted for a procession towards Parliament. A prohibitory order under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 was imposed in the New Delhi district, restricting gatherings and processions. In a public advisory, police warned that unauthorised marches and assemblies would invite legal action, including proceedings under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Security personnel continue to target CJP protestors using tear gas. https://t.co/iWiueWBfcm pic.twitter.com/ydqOtoSvp7

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) July 20, 2026

CJP Protest | Police fired tear gas shells as protesters attempted to move towards Parliament during the CJP march. Heavy security remains deployed across central Delhi amid heightened tensions.

Live Updates: https://t.co/9MiFsaawxj pic.twitter.com/CPaxfO7puC

— The Wire (@thewire_in) July 20, 2026

#Watch | Delhi Police used sticks and batons to disperse hundreds of students and youth activists marching from Mandi House Metro Station towards Jantar Mantar in an attempt to reach the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest site on Monday, eyewitnesses said. The protesters,… pic.twitter.com/3wiokZ3vyC

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) July 20, 2026

JUST IN | Visuals from the march led by Cockroach Janta Party enroute to the Parliament

Video: Special Arrangementhttps://t.co/o7I5R010Wv pic.twitter.com/3gqPtAHxs7

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) July 20, 2026

The invocation of Section 163 became one of the central points of contestation. While authorities justified the restrictions on the basis of Parliament security and public order, protesters questioned whether preventive powers were being used to regulate a peaceful political demonstration rather than respond to any actual threat of violence.

The constitutional difficulty with such restrictions is not whether the State can regulate public assemblies. It undoubtedly can. The right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b) is subject to reasonable restrictions. However, the repeated use of preventive orders raises a larger question: whether administrative convenience and security concerns are being expanded into a general power to prevent citizens from carrying their grievances into public spaces.

On July 20, as protesters prepared to begin the march, the security presence around Jantar Mantar intensified further. The Indian Express reported that multiple layers of barricades were installed, roads around Parliament were blocked and large contingents of police and paramilitary personnel were deployed. The report stated that additional officers were called from different districts, with more than 2,000 paramilitary personnel deployed across New Delhi district.

PUBLIC ADVISORY

In view of reports of a proposed march to Parliament by CJP on 20.07.2026 (Monday), Delhi Police hereby categorically clarifies that no permission has been sought or granted for any such protest march/procession.

Prohibitory order under Section 163 BNSS…

— DCP New Delhi (@DCPNewDelhi) July 19, 2026

A senior police officer, as reported by The Indian Express, told organisers that the possibility of a stampede was a concern and urged them to reconsider the movement of such a large crowd. The protesters responded that they had consistently maintained discipline and that the administration was using security concerns to prevent the march itself.

As the march began, thousands of protesters continued gathering despite rain and restrictions. According to Deccan Herald, citing PTI, some protesters attempting to reach the Jantar Mantar site from Mandi House alleged that police used force, including claims of lathi-charge. Delhi Police denied the allegations, stating on social media that “no such incident has taken place” and that the protest was being handled professionally. The conflicting accounts reflected the broader dispute over the proportionality of police action.

The authorities also temporarily restricted access to certain metro stations, including Janpath, Patel Chowk, Rajiv Chowk, Central Secretariat and Seva Teerth, citing security concerns. Roads leading towards Parliament were barricaded, and movement around central Delhi was tightly controlled.

For protesters, these measures represented the State’s attempt to contain a movement demanding accountability from those in power. They argued that a democracy cannot celebrate the right to protest in principle while restricting citizens whenever they attempt to approach the institutions they seek to question.

For the administration, the restrictions represented a legitimate exercise of responsibility to protect Parliament, maintain public order and prevent possible disorder. The Chalo Sansad march therefore became more than a dispute over one procession route. It brought into focus a recurring constitutional tension: whether the State’s responsibility to maintain order is being exercised to protect democracy, or whether it is being used to limit the very democratic expression that creates accountability.

July 20: Negotiations and government outreach

Even as incidents of chaos were being reported, on July 20, CJP spokesperson Saurav Das announced on X that he, along with Ashutosh Ranka, was travelling to meet BJP president and senior Union Minister J.P. Nadda after receiving a communication from the government seeking talks. Das wrote: “It’s 11:52 AM. Ashutosh Ranka and I, on behalf of the Cockroach Janta Party, are on our way to meet JP Nadda. The government had reached out for talks in the morning. Our demands are clear. The youth have gathered in huge numbers.”

CJP representatives maintained that any engagement would have to address the core issues that had brought students to the streets — accountability for alleged examination irregularities, responsibility for failures in the examination system, and assurances that similar crises would not recur.

As per the report of The Hindu, the CJP rejected offers to meet the District Magistrate, a Union Government Secretary, and a Minister of State, insisting on talks with the Prime Minister or a Cabinet Minister.

Solidarity across India

As the Delhi protest continued, solidarity demonstrations emerged in several parts of the country. As reported by FinancialExpress.com, activists and students in cities including Hyderabad, Mumbai, Pune, Nagpur, and Ahilya Nagar have organized rallies to demand the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan and to protest the forced hospitalization of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk.

Mumbai: In Mumbai, the state’s restrictive approach to public assembly has turned the city into a theater of confrontation. Supporters gathered at Shivaji Park on July 19, 2026, after being denied permission to demonstrate at Azad Maidan or other locations in South Mumbai. According to The Indian Express, a senior police officer justified this denial by citing the Public Meetings, Agitations and Processions Rules, 2025, which prohibit protests on weekends and public holidays.

The atmosphere at Shivaji Park was charged, with Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray calling for a nationwide agitation. The Indian Express noted that Thackeray escalated the rhetoric, arguing that the demand for the Education Minister’s resignation was a “small issue” and that the broader struggle must be to “change the government”. During the protest, participants raised concerns that structural failures in the examination system are consistently harming the future of the nation’s youth.

The Mumbai Police’s response has been marked by a series of legal actions. The Indian Express reported that on July 18, the police registered two FIRs against protesters for violating the Public Meetings, Agitations and Processions Rules, 2025. Specifically:

• A case was filed at the Marine Drive Police Station against NCP (SP) student leaders for protesting outside the state secretariat.
• A second FIR was registered at the Azad Maidan Police Station against activist-writer Sudhir Dhawale and others for protesting near the Press Club, with charges including unlawful assembly and disobedience of public servant orders.

Pune: In Pune, the movement saw hundreds gather at Balgandharva Chowk to express solidarity with Wangchuk and demand systemic educational reforms. The Indian Express reported that the demonstration became tense when police moved to disperse the crowd, leading to the detention of several protesters who refused to comply with official instructions. Participants, including educators and students, emphasized that the NEET issue is a symptom of a larger lack of accountability within the government, stressing that the youth’s faith in the education system is at risk.

Bengaluru: Meanwhile, The Hindu reported that over 1,000 people gathered at Freedom Park in Bengaluru on July 19 to protest the NEET paper leak and the “deteriorating democratic system”. The gathering evolved into a forum for broader societal critique; actor Kishor Kumar urged attendees to ensure the momentum is not limited to NEET but extends to support for farmers, labourers, and other marginalized groups. Young participants, such as 13-year-old Sohan and student Kavya, highlighted a growing sense of disillusionment, questioning what the future holds if the state continues to evade accountability for its failures.

Support gatherings were also reported from:

• Hyderabad;
• Nagpur;
• Indore;
• Jammu;
• Guwahati;

July 20: Updates on the hunger strikes

Even after being shifted from Jantar Mantar to Safdarjung Hospital, Sonam Wangchuk continued his hunger strike, making it clear that his decision to end the fast would depend not on his medical condition alone but on whether the larger concerns that triggered the movement received a political response.

On July 20, ahead of the proposed “Chalo Sansad” march, Wangchuk issued a handwritten note titled “WHEN WILL I END THE FAST….!”, laying down the circumstances under which he would withdraw his indefinite fast. As reported by The Times of India and other media outlets, the conditions focused on accountability for failures in the education system, particularly alleged examination irregularities and question paper leaks.

Significantly, while the broader CJP movement had consistently raised the demand for the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, Wangchuk’s stated conditions for ending his fast did not specifically include the Education Minister’s resignation. Instead, he framed the issue in terms of institutional accountability and corrective action.

Wangchuk stated that he would end the fast if the government accepted responsibility for the “recent failures in the education system”, including alleged paper leaks. Alternatively, he said the fast would end if he and CJP leadership were able to reach Parliament and receive assurances from Members of Parliament and leaders of various political parties that the issues raised by the protesters would be taken up during the Monsoon Session.

He also stated that if his health or circumstances prevented him from participating in the march, MPs and political leaders should visit him at the hospital and provide similar assurances.

The conditions reflected a shift in focus from the immediate symbolism of the hunger strike to the larger political objective of securing parliamentary attention on the education crisis. Wangchuk’s message emphasised that the protest was not centred around one individual but around the concerns of students affected by alleged failures in the examination system.

In a message shared through his wife, Dr Gitanjali Angmo, Wangchuk reiterated that he was not the “cause” of the movement but merely a voice for young people who were seeking accountability. Angmo, speaking outside Safdarjung Hospital after the Delhi High Court hearing, said that the proposed march to Parliament would continue and that Wangchuk had consistently maintained that the movement belonged to the youth.

Meanwhile, Wangchuk’s health remained under medical supervision. A health bulletin issued by Vardhman Mahavir Medical College (VMMC) and Safdarjung Hospital on July 20 stated that he continued to receive medical care and that his vital parameters were stable, but his blood parameters required close observation. The hospital stated that continued clinical monitoring and medical intervention remained necessary, with a multidisciplinary team supervising his condition.

Alongside the broader mobilisation, students associated with the All India Students’ Association (AISA) also undertook hunger strikes in solidarity with the movement.  The three student activists, Neha, Manish and Aameen, concluded their hunger strike after 23 days. Their decision came following an appeal by a delegation comprising parliamentarians, civil society representatives and public figures, who urged them to continue the struggle through parliamentary engagement and public campaigns rather than through continued fasting.

AISA stated that the students had suffered significant physical consequences during the fast, including substantial weight loss and dangerously low blood sugar levels. Their withdrawal marked a transition in one phase of the student-led protest, even as the broader mobilisation continued through the march towards Parliament.

Conclusion: From examination failure to a crisis of accountability

The July 20 developments marked a decisive shift in the nature of the education protest. What began as a demand from students affected by alleged examination irregularities became a wider confrontation over how the State responds when institutional failures generate public anger.

The central demand of the movement remained unchanged: accountability for the failures that undermined confidence in India’s competitive examination system. The protests were not merely about the cancellation of an examination or the consequences of a paper leak. For thousands of students, the issue represented a deeper fear that years of preparation, personal sacrifice and aspirations could be undermined by failures within institutions responsible for ensuring fairness.

The escalation of the movement, however, shifted attention from the original grievance to the State’s handling of dissent. Sonam Wangchuk’s hunger strike became the symbol of this transition. The events surrounding the Chalo Sansad march further exposed this tension. The government’s decision to prevent protesters from moving towards Parliament was defended on grounds of security and public order. Yet, for protesters, the restrictions raised a fundamental concern: if citizens cannot approach elected representatives with grievances affecting millions of young people, where does democratic accountability occur?

Related:

India–US trade deal faces mounting resistance as farmers intensify protests

From Protest to Petition: Maharashtra’s Public Safety Act in the dock

May-June 2026: Youth Congress nationwide protests challenge education system collapse under Modi government, media gives cold shoulder?

Noida Protest 2026: A labour uprising the state refused to understand

NSA slapped on journalist, DU scholar in Noida workers’ protest case amid allegations of crackdown on dissent

The post The exam crisis that became a battle for accountability appeared first on SabrangIndia.