Tushar Gandhi among 12 named in FIR over Mumbai protest; 600 detained and released

The protest near Mumbai’s August Kranti Maidan was stopped before demonstrators could reach the ground. Police barricaded roads on October 10, 2026, and detained people arriving near Nana Chowk. More than 500 police personnel, including riot-control police, were deployed. The action matters because it turned a planned political gathering into a major law-and-order operation.

Police registered the FIR at Gamdevi police station. It names 12 people, including Tushar Gandhi, Shailendra Kamble, Prakash Reddy and Imran Khan, along with 350 others. The cited provisions include alleged disobedience of official orders, restraint-related conduct and unlawful-assembly offences. Tushar Gandhi was detained separately in Bandra while travelling to the gathering.

The protest was organised by Hum Bharat Ke Log in solidarity with a Delhi protest by the Cockroach Janta Party and Left groups. That protest demanded the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and others. Police said around 600 protesters were detained across Mumbai and later released. Further legal process is continuing.

FIR means First Information Report. It is the police’s formal record of information about an alleged cognisable offence. Registering one begins the investigation. It does not prove that anyone committed a crime, and it does not itself decide guilt. That distinction matters because an FIR can affect many people before a court examines the evidence.

In this case, the FIR was registered at Gamdevi police station against 12 named accused and 350 others. The named people include Tushar Gandhi, Shailendra Kamble, Prakash Reddy and Imran Khan. The larger group is described collectively, rather than individually, in the article. Police may investigate the alleged conduct and determine each person’s involvement.

An FIR can be followed by statements, evidence collection, notices, arrest where legally justified, and a police report to court. The article does not say that all 362 people were arrested or formally charged in court. It reports that around 600 protesters were detained and released, while further legal process is continuing.

Police detained around 600 protesters across Mumbai during the action linked to the August Kranti Maidan gathering. The scale is notable because the detentions extended across the city, not only to people already named in the FIR. Detention can temporarily prevent people from joining a gathering, but it is not the same as a conviction.

Those arriving near Nana Chowk were detained and taken to police stations. Tushar Gandhi was detained separately in Bandra while he was travelling to the gathering and was taken to D.N. Nagar police station. The article does not provide a complete list of every station used or identify every detained person.

Deputy Commissioner of Police Ragasudha R. said all around 600 detainees had been released. Release does not necessarily end the matter. Police said further legal process was continuing, and the FIR remains the basis for investigating alleged offences connected with the protest. The article does not state whether released protesters received notices or faced individual charges.

Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita generally addresses disobedience to an order lawfully issued by a public servant. Section 126(2) concerns wrongful confinement, a form of restricting someone’s movement. Section 189 covers unlawful-assembly conduct, including participation in or continuation of an assembly in circumstances defined by the law. These provisions relate to public order and movement.

The article lists Sections 223, 126(2), 189(2), 189(3) and 189(5). In practical terms, the police appear to be examining whether official directions were disobeyed, whether people were unlawfully restrained or confined, and whether the gathering met legal conditions for an unlawful assembly. The FIR names 12 people and 350 others.

The exact allegation against each person cannot be determined from the article. An FIR records alleged offences for investigation; it does not establish that every cited section applies to every accused person. Police will gather evidence, and courts would ultimately decide whether the legal elements of any charge are proved.

An FIR can set several legal steps in motion even when detainees are released. Police may record statements, collect video or witness evidence, identify individual roles and issue notices. If investigators believe the evidence supports offences, they may submit a report to a court. Release from detention does not erase the allegations or prevent a later summons.

Here, the FIR names 12 people and 350 others under provisions involving public orders, restraint-related conduct and unlawful assemblies. Around 600 protesters were detained and then released. The article does not say that every detainee was an accused person, or that every named accused was arrested. Those distinctions matter when assessing possible consequences.

The case could lead to charges, court appearances and a trial if investigators file a case and prosecutors proceed. A court may eventually discharge or acquit some people, or convict if guilt is proved beyond the required standard. The article gives no final outcome. It only records that further legal process was under way.

The Election Commission of India is an independent constitutional authority responsible for supervising and conducting elections in India. It manages important parts of the electoral process, including election schedules, rules and oversight. Because its decisions affect political competition and public trust, demands concerning its leadership can become politically significant.

The protest described in the article demanded the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and others. Hum Bharat Ke Log organised the Mumbai gathering in solidarity with a protest in Delhi by the Cockroach Janta Party and Left groups. The article identifies the demand but does not explain the allegations or events behind it.

That missing explanation is important. The source does not establish that the Chief Election Commissioner committed misconduct or that removal proceedings had begun. It only records what the protesters demanded. The immediate consequence described was police prevention of access to the maidan, detentions and an FIR. Further legal process over the protest was continuing.

India’s Constitution protects citizens’ right to assemble peacefully and without arms under Article 19(1)(b). This right allows people to gather, express political views and support causes. It is not unlimited. The Constitution permits reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order, among other constitutionally recognised grounds. Any restriction must still be lawful and proportionate.

Authorities may use measures such as route controls, conditions, barricades or dispersal directions when they have a valid public-order reason. In this case, police barricaded roads leading to August Kranti Maidan, deployed more than 500 personnel and detained people arriving near Nana Chowk. The article does not state the precise order or public-order assessment behind those measures.

Police also registered an FIR citing BNS provisions on public orders, restraint and unlawful assemblies. Around 600 protesters were released, but further legal process continues. Whether the restrictions and any alleged offences were legally justified would depend on the facts, the orders issued, the evidence and eventual judicial review.