Delhi Police has denied permission to the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) to hold a demonstration at Jantar Mantar on October 10, citing potential law-and-order concerns, traffic disruption and alleged violations of conditions imposed during an earlier protest. The party has called for the demonstration to demand the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The police have tightened security across the capital ahead of the proposed demonstration, even as CJP has vowed to proceed despite the denial of permission. Measures associated with the security arrangements include restrictions on access to Delhi Metro stations, train cancellations, traffic diversions and a temporary suspension of mobile internet services in parts of central Delhi.
CJP has criticised the restrictions, alleging that the BJP-led government is creating an emergency-like situation by curbing public movement. The measures have also raised questions about the balance between citizens’ right to protest and the authorities’ responsibility to maintain public order.
In a letter addressed to CJP co-convenor Saurav Das and joint secretary Balkrishna, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi district, said permission for the proposed demonstration could lead to serious law-and-order concerns.
“In the larger public interest, the permission sought cannot be granted and is hereby denied,” the letter stated.
Police also said the communication received from the party was an intimation about the proposed demonstration rather than a formal application seeking permission.
According to the police, guidelines require applications for events at Jantar Mantar to be submitted at least 10 days before the proposed date.
The authorities also cited alleged violations of conditions during previous demonstrations, including protests continuing beyond the stipulated time limits, which they said had contributed to law-and-order problems.
The police said the decision was taken in view of the short notice, the party’s alleged failure to comply with earlier directions and prevailing public-safety, traffic-management and law-and-order concerns.
CJP activist Abhijeet Dipke said the demonstration demanding Gyanesh Kumar’s removal would go ahead at Jantar Mantar on October 10 despite the denial of permission. He invoked Article 19 of the Constitution to argue that citizens have a right to protest.
“Did Gyanesh Kumar take permission? Before deleting 13 crore votes, did Gyanesh Kumar take permission? The Supreme Court didn't even give approval for the Form 6 modification. So, when Gyanesh Kumar, without telling anyone, without asking anyone, deletes 13 crore votes, then to protest against him, the constitutional right we have according to Article 19, what is the need for permission?” he said.
The allegations about the deletion of votes and the Form 6 modification were made by Dipke and should be assessed separately against official records.
Dipke also questioned the police’s requirement that applications for demonstrations at Jantar Mantar be submitted at least 10 days in advance.
“The government is very serious. I think Narendra Modi and Amit Shah should keep checking their blood pressure. The kind of fear this government is showing,” he said.
He appealed to supporters to continue with the protest even if he or other CJP leaders were arrested.
The Indian Constitution protects several freedoms that underpin peaceful protest. These include freedom of speech and expression, the right to assemble peacefully and without arms, and the right to form associations or unions.
These protections enable citizens to question government decisions and participate in democratic debate. However, the right to protest is not absolute, and it does not automatically confer an unrestricted right to demonstrate at any particular location.
Article 19 permits constitutionally specified restrictions on these freedoms. Under Article 19(2), reasonable restrictions may be imposed on freedom of speech and expression on grounds including public order, the security of the state, the sovereignty and integrity of India, and other specified interests.
For peaceful assembly, Article 19(3) permits reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India and public order. Restrictions on associations are addressed under Article 19(4).
Authorities may regulate demonstrations to address genuine public-safety and traffic concerns. However, the legality of a particular restriction depends on its legal basis, scope, necessity and application. The existence of a right to protest does not automatically invalidate every restriction, just as a public-order justification does not by itself establish that every restriction is lawful.
The Supreme Court has considered these issues in cases involving public demonstrations, including the Shaheen Bagh protests and farmers’ protests. Such cases have addressed the relationship between peaceful assembly, public access to roads and public spaces, and the state’s responsibility to maintain order.
Delhi was placed under heightened security ahead of the proposed CJP demonstration on October 10. Police erected barricades and restricted access to roads leading towards Jantar Mantar, while security personnel were deployed across the capital.
Reports ahead of the protest put the deployment of police and paramilitary personnel at around 25,000. Special arrangements included Rapid Action Force teams, personnel equipped with body cameras and all-women security units.
Entry and exit gates at 57 Delhi Metro stations were ordered closed as part of the security measures. Mobile internet services were also temporarily suspended within a 4-km radius of the Janpath-Kartavya Path crossing from 10 pm on October 9 to 10 pm on October 10, according to an official order.
Prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) were imposed in the New Delhi district. The neighbouring Gautam Buddha Nagar district, which includes Noida, also imposed restrictions until October 20, citing festival-related crowds, examinations and the possibility of farmer or political demonstrations. Police stepped up checks at interstate borders.
Delhi Police also identified stadiums and community centres as temporary holding facilities in anticipation of possible detentions. Security personnel were instructed to manage crowds and prevent untoward incidents.
The measures have affected public transport and movement in the capital, drawing scrutiny over the extent of the restrictions. The Supreme Court also raised concerns about blanket curbs on public transport ahead of the demonstration and directed authorities to ensure that the movement of Metro and railway services was not completely halted.
The dispute over the proposed protest therefore raises a wider constitutional question: how can authorities address genuine security and public-order concerns while ensuring that restrictions do not unnecessarily impede citizens’ ability to exercise their fundamental rights?
(This copy is compiled by Ranju Raj)