Anti-CEC protest: Right-wing group members assault protesters at Connaught Place

After Delhi Police detained hundreds trying to reach the planned Cockroach Janta Party demonstration at Jantar Mantar, about 200 men gathered at Indira Chowk in Connaught Place. They backed the police action and shouted threats against CJP supporters and Rahul Gandhi. The group also used a derogatory term for protesters.

Members identifying themselves as Hanuman Sena Delhi allegedly heckled, slapped and assaulted demonstrators. They chased people around Connaught Place’s inner circle and issued threats. One confrontation occurred roughly 50 metres from police stationed near Kharak Singh Marg. Officers did not visibly intervene, according to the report.

The episode raised questions about unequal enforcement. Police detained protesters heading toward the designated site, yet appeared not to stop nearby attacks. The report also described videos showing a young woman beaten and another protester chased and injured. Protesters alleged that police and group members sometimes pursued them together.

The main groups were CJP supporters and men from right-wing groups. CJP protesters were attempting to reach a planned demonstration at Jantar Mantar. Delhi Police detained hundreds of them on the way. The opposing group gathered at Indira Chowk and publicly supported the police action.

Some members identified themselves as Hanuman Sena Delhi. They shouted that police should use batons and called for violence against CJP supporters and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi. They also used “cockroaches” as a derogatory label for people supporting the CJP. The group reportedly numbered about 200 men.

The conflict therefore involved more than competing political messages. One side was trying to attend a demonstration, while the other confronted people nearby and supported their detention. Social-media calls had circulated beforehand, urging right-wing members to reach Jantar Mantar with batons and confront CJP protesters. The report also mentions responses from AAP and Congress.

Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is a legal provision allowing an authorised magistrate to issue written orders in urgent situations. These orders can direct people to abstain from particular acts or regulate conduct, gatherings and movement when authorities believe intervention is needed to prevent danger, nuisance or public disorder. The article does not explain the provision’s wording in detail.

In this case, the report says prohibitory orders under Section 163 were in force in the area. Despite that, about 200 men gathered at Indira Chowk. Some allegedly heckled, threatened and assaulted protesters, while police personnel remained nearby.

The important issue is enforcement. A restriction on gatherings has little practical effect if people can assemble and attack others without apparent intervention. The report says police detained protesters heading to Jantar Mantar, but did not visibly stop the nearby confrontations. That contrast prompted questions about how the orders were applied and whether enforcement was even-handed.

About 200 men gathered at Indira Chowk and raised slogans supporting police action. Some identified themselves as Hanuman Sena Delhi. The article does not provide a separate, complete tally of everyone assaulted, injured or threatened during the day.

It describes at least three distinct assault episodes or settings. First, members of the group allegedly slapped and assaulted protesters while chasing them around Connaught Place. Second, a video showed a young woman knocked down and beaten by several men. Third, another video showed a protester chased and attacked, apparently by a man holding a metal knuckle; he suffered multiple wounds on his back.

These accounts should not be read as a definitive incident count. The report also mentions similar instances across the city and says protesters alleged that police and group members sometimes pursued demonstrators together. The clearest numerical figure is therefore the group’s size, while the assaults are described qualitatively and through separate examples.

When people are threatened or physically attacked in public, police are responsible for protecting safety and enforcing the law without favouring one political side. Their role includes responding to immediate danger, separating people, providing aid, preserving evidence and investigating alleged offences. They must also apply restrictions consistently.

The report describes officers stationed near the confrontations, including about 50 metres from one clash. Members of the group allegedly chased and assaulted protesters, while police did not visibly intervene. One officer said, “We are seeing what can be done,” and another did not respond. A video also showed officers nearby during an assault.

The article records allegations, not final legal findings. Still, the reported scenes raise a basic accountability question: whether officers protected people equally while detaining protesters elsewhere. A credible response would require clarifying what officers saw, what action they took, and whether complaints or investigations followed. The report does not state that outcome.

When police detain one group but appear not to stop another group’s violence, people may conclude that the law is being applied selectively. Protesters may fear attending demonstrations, while political groups may believe intimidation is an effective tool. That can shrink civic space and make future confrontations more likely.

The report gives a direct example. Hundreds of CJP supporters were detained while trying to reach Jantar Mantar. Nearby, men who backed the police action allegedly threatened, chased and assaulted protesters. Police were stationed close to the incidents, and videos showed officers near attacks. AAP and Congress responded by accusing the government of enabling hooliganism.

These are reported allegations, not established findings of official complicity. If they remain unexplained, however, public trust can suffer. Protesters may seek safety in larger groups, political rivals may escalate rhetoric, and communities may doubt whether police will protect them. Clear investigations, equal enforcement and public accountability would be important to restore confidence.

Peaceful assembly lets people express views, organise politically and challenge those in power. Equal enforcement means the same rules protect and constrain supporters of different groups. State control over physical force means violence is regulated by accountable public institutions, rather than private groups deciding who may speak or gather.

The report shows why these principles matter together. Police detained hundreds attempting to reach the CJP demonstration, while about 200 men nearby allegedly threatened and assaulted protesters. The men praised police action, and officers were visibly stationed close to some confrontations. Prohibitory orders were also reportedly in force.

The article does not establish final responsibility for the alleged assaults. It does show a sharp gap between formal restrictions and events on the street. If peaceful participation becomes risky, people may withdraw from public life or respond through confrontation. Consistent policing, investigation of alleged attacks and protection for lawful expression help keep political competition within democratic rules.