About Us Contact Us
PoliticsIndiaRights

Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC

sabrangindia    
CPI(M) general secretary M.A. Baby, former Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, SFI activists, lawyers, journalists and AISA leader Neha Bora were among those detained as protests targeted Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

Protesters continued to take to the streets of Delhi on October 10, refusing to abandon their mobilisation against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, even as police detained political leaders, student activists, lawyers and journalists at multiple locations across the capital.

The day’s demonstrations unfolded amid barricades, restrictions on movement and a heavy police presence. Yet the attempts to contain the mobilisation did not bring it to a halt. As groups were stopped or detained, others continued marching, regrouped at alternative locations and raised slogans against the Election Commission and the SIR exercise.

 

https://x.com/the_hindu/status/2108835546986693091 

 

https://x.com/ImAvdheshkumar/status/2108863248586158540 

The crackdown extended well beyond the organisers of the protest. Among those detained were senior leaders of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), student leaders associated with the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), lawyers marching from the Supreme Court, and journalists reporting on the unfolding events. The breadth of the detentions raised serious questions about the space being allowed for political dissent, peaceful assembly and independent reporting.

CPI(M) leaders detained as protest spreads

Several prominent CPI(M) leaders were detained near Jantar Mantar as they joined the protest. Those detained included party general secretary M.A. Baby, former Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas, former Kerala finance minister K.N. Balagopal, senior leader Brinda Karat and former Kerala health minister K.K. Shailaja.

The detentions were reported by The Indian Express and The Week. John Brittas also posted about the developments on his social media account, while the CPI(M)’s official account shared updates on the detention of its leaders.

The detention of an entire group of senior political leaders underscored the scale of the police action against the mobilisation. Their presence also made clear that opposition to the SIR was not confined to the youth-led initiative that had helped bring protesters onto the streets.

The central demand of the protest concerns the accountability of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and opposition to the SIR process. These concerns go to the heart of democratic representation. The integrity of electoral rolls is not merely an administrative matter: the process through which voters are included or excluded determines who can exercise the franchise.

Student activists detained, but protesters regroup

Student activists were among those targeted as police sought to contain the demonstrations at different points in Delhi. Aishe Ghosh was detained near Bangla Sahib, while SFI activists were seen confronting police barricades. Footage shared by The Hindu documented developments around the protest, including scenes of student demonstrators pushing against barricades.

Members of the Communist Party of India (CPI) also marched from Ajoy Bhawan as the mobilisation continued. Meanwhile, another group of protesters gathered near INA Metro station, demonstrating how the mobilisation was spreading across different parts of the city even as police attempted to restrict movement around the principal protest site.

AISA national president Neha Bora announced Dilli Haat as an alternative location for the demonstration. She was subsequently detained near the Safdarjung Airport flyover. Videos circulating from the site showed protesters surrounding the police bus in which she was being held.

The sequence of events was significant: rather than simply dispersing the gathering, police action was followed by fresh attempts to assemble elsewhere. Protesters continued to look for ways to make their opposition visible despite the risk of detention.

The relocation of demonstrators also exposed the practical consequences of restrictions imposed across the city. When access to one location was blocked, protesters attempted to find another. The response was further police intervention, rather than an evident effort to facilitate a peaceful assembly.

Lawyers detained on their way from the Supreme Court

The crackdown also reached members of the legal community. Lawyers marching from the Supreme Court were detained, with Bar & Bench reporting that around 100 lawyers had been detained. Reports also alleged that women lawyers were manhandled during the police action.

The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) sought the intervention of the Chief Justice of India over the detentions and the alleged use of excessive force.

Journalists detained while covering the protest

Journalists reporting on the demonstrations were also detained, adding to concerns about the ability of the press to document police action. Newslaundry reporters Ashwine Singh, Savyasachi Astha and Anmol Pritam were detained, and their phones were reportedly seized. They were later released. Scroll reporter Ayush Tiwari was detained near ITO, while the publication’s political editor, Shoaib Daniyal, was detained near CR Park. Journalists from The Wire were also reportedly threatened with detention despite carrying press cards. Reports further identified journalists from Navbharat Times and Reporter TV among those detained.

The Wire reported that Delhi Police detained journalists despite press identification and its own guidelines concerning the handling of media personnel. The News Minute also reported detentions involving journalists from Newslaundry, Scroll, Navbharat Times and Reporter TV.

The detention of reporters covering a public demonstration cannot be treated as an incidental detail in the day’s events. Journalists are responsible for documenting what takes place on the streets, including the conduct of the police and the treatment of protesters. Detaining reporters, seizing their phones or obstructing their work risks preventing the public from receiving an independent account of the exercise of state power.

Sweeping restrictions across the capital

The protests took place amid extensive restrictions on movement and transport. According to live reporting by NDTV, gates at 45 Metro stations were closed, while more than 250 trains departing from New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin railway stations were cancelled between 4 am and 2 pm. Internet services were also suspended within a four-kilometre radius around the Janpath–Kartavya Path area.

The scale of these measures extended the impact of the police response beyond those directly participating in the protest. Commuters and other residents were also affected by disruptions to public transport and connectivity. The Supreme Court intervened over the proposed Metro shutdown, emphasising that restrictions had to be proportionate. The intervention brought the question of proportionality into sharp focus: authorities may regulate public assemblies and take measures to address genuine security concerns, but restrictions cannot be allowed to become a blanket mechanism for suppressing dissent or imposing disproportionate hardship on the public.

https://x.com/_YogendraYadav/status/2108855669059424567 

 

The Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) also condemned the police repression of protest in Delhi, demanded the resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar. Their statement read:

The Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) strongly condemns the government’s repression of today’s protest at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar over serious concerns regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the functioning of the Election Commission of India.

The reported detention of students, activists and protesters, along with attempts to obstruct their participation in the democratic demonstration, is a serious attack on citizens’ fundamental rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and democratic dissent.

INSAF holds that the Election Commission, as an independent constitutional institution, must function impartially and transparently and remain accountable to the people. Instead of suppressing democratic protests, the government must address public concerns over electoral integrity and ensure that no eligible voter is arbitrarily deprived of their right to vote.

INSAF demands an immediate end to the repression of protesters, the release of all those detained in connection with the peaceful demonstration, and accountability for the police action. We reiterate our demand for the resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar and call upon democratic organisations, civil society groups and citizens to unite in defence of democracy, constitutional rights and free and fair elections.

Democracy cannot be defended by suppressing dissent. The people’s voice must be heard and respected.

The constitutional framework recognises both the right to assemble peacefully under Article 19(1)(b) and the power of the state to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests specified under Article 19(3). In Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad (1973), the Supreme Court recognised the right to hold public meetings on streets while also acknowledging the authority of the state to regulate their use. In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018), the Court addressed the need to balance the right to protest with the rights of other users of public spaces.

That balance cannot be reduced to the question of whether police have the authority to erect barricades or impose restrictions. The legality and proportionality of the measures, their impact on fundamental rights and the manner in which they are enforced are equally important. Public order cannot become a blanket justification for preventing citizens from expressing political opposition.

CJP organisers detained on arrival

The organisers associated with the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), whose mobilisation had helped draw attention to the protest, were also detained. Founders Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka were reportedly taken into custody after arriving at Indira Gandhi International Airport.

According to reports by Reuters, NDTV and The Economic Times, the three were detained from inside the plane after it landed in Delhi. Dipke had reportedly recorded a message in advance naming Ajinkya Shinde to lead the protest in his absence.

Their detention did not end the mobilisation. Protesters continued to gather and march at different locations, even as police action against political leaders, students, lawyers and journalists drew further attention to the restrictions surrounding the demonstration.

The detentions of the CJP organisers were one part of a much wider police response. The day’s events cannot be understood solely through the fate of the protest’s founders: the participation of Left leaders, student organisations, lawyers and journalists demonstrated that the opposition to the SIR had drawn a broader cross-section of people into the streets.

A protest that police action has not silenced

The events in Delhi on October 10 raise fundamental questions about the limits of police power in a democracy. But can detention, restrictions on movement and the disruption of reporting cannot substitute for an answer to the concerns that brought people onto the streets?

Detailed report on the extent of suppression of dissent tactics used by Delhi police may be read here.

The protest was directed at the Election Commission, the SIR exercise and the accountability of the Chief Election Commissioner. Those are matters of public and constitutional significance. They cannot be made to disappear by detaining demonstrators or making it difficult for them to assemble.

The continued attempts to march, regroup and demonstrate across Delhi showed that the mobilisation had not been extinguished by the day’s police action. If anything, the detention of political leaders, students, lawyers and journalists has sharpened the questions about the space available for dissent.

A democracy is tested not only by whether citizens are permitted to participate in elections, but also by whether they can question the institutions that administer them. The right to vote and the right to protest are not competing principles. Both are integral to democratic participation, and both require institutions to remain answerable to the public.

Related:

Police detain Adivasi students for second day, force them out of Mumbai

From Nashik to Mumbai: Adivasi students’ protest meets police detentions

Youth Congress escalates fight against CEC Gyanesh Kumar as SIR controversy fuels nationwide protests

Unpacking a Coded Defence: What an IIT Professor’s post reveals about attitudes in elite institutions

‘Solidarity Is Not a Crime’: Mumbai activists protest alleged police harassment over Palestine event

 

Trending

IN FOCUS

IN FOCUS

Related Articles

ALL STORIES

Load more

ALL STORIES

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Join our mailing list to get the latest human rights news that matters, straight to your mailbox.

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Join our mailing list to get the latest human rights news that matters, straight to your mailbox.

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT

Email: sabrangind@gmail.com

© Sabrang | All Rights Reserved