Delhi protest crackdown: 20 FIRs registered, assault on cops among charges

The CJP-led protest in Delhi demanded Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Police stopped demonstrators from reaching Jantar Mantar through barricades, heavy deployment, and widespread detentions. The protest became contentious after reports of stone-throwing and injuries.

The 20 FIRs cover charges including assaulting police personnel and obstructing public servants from performing their duties. One case at Kamla Market police station concerns the alleged assault of students and manhandling of women. Four men claiming links to the right-wing Hindu Raksha Dal were arrested in that case.

The FIRs show that police are treating the protest as involving both public-order violations and alleged attacks on individuals. CJP activists, however, called the restrictions excessive and described the event as a youth-led movement. The allegations will need to be examined through the legal process rather than settled by competing claims alone.

The protest triggered a major security operation across the national capital. More than 7,000 people, including opposition leaders and activists, were detained as police tried to stop demonstrators from reaching Jantar Mantar. The scale of detention made the protest a citywide public-order event rather than a small gathering.

Police deployed thousands of personnel and erected barricades at several points. The article does not give an exact number for the officers deployed, but it describes the deployment as massive. Several incidents of stone-throwing were reported. More than 15 police personnel were injured, including Deputy Commissioner of Police (South) Anant Mittal.

These figures show the confrontation’s breadth while also revealing a limit in the available data: the number detained and injured is reported, but the total security force is not. The Supreme Court later directed authorities to protect peaceful gatherings and keep essential services operating subject to law-and-order conditions.

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a detailed review of electoral rolls. Election authorities use such a process to check voter records, remove ineligible or duplicate entries, and add or correct eligible voters. The goal is to make the rolls accurate before elections, because the roll determines who can vote.

Allegations of irregularities may arise if officials apply the verification process unevenly or make mistakes. Eligible voters could be left out, names could be recorded incorrectly, or disputed removals could go uncorrected. The article does not identify any specific alleged error in the SIR; it only reports that the CJP protested over alleged irregularities.

That distinction matters. A revision can improve electoral records, but public confidence depends on clear procedures, accurate checks, and a meaningful way to challenge mistakes. The protest’s demand for Kumar’s resignation shows how concerns about the roll can become a broader dispute over election administration.

Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita gives authorities a preventive power to issue written orders when urgent action is considered necessary to prevent danger, obstruction, disturbance, or harm. Such orders can regulate or prohibit gatherings, including assemblies of five or more people, in a specified area and for a limited period.

In this case, a notice board outside the Supreme Court premises announced the imposition of Section 163. The Supreme Court ordered authorities to remove that notice board while hearing a plea alleging violations of its directions about restrictions on Metro and train services. The article identifies the provision as restricting assemblies of five or more people.

The power does not automatically make every detention lawful. Authorities must follow the order’s terms and applicable legal safeguards. The Supreme Court’s directions underline that public-order controls should not illegally detain people gathering peacefully or unnecessarily obstruct professional and essential activities.

The Supreme Court directed authorities to ensure that people gathering peacefully were not illegally detained. It also ordered Delhi Metro services to operate normally, subject to law-and-order conditions. These directions addressed both the right to assemble peacefully and the public’s ability to move through the capital during the protest.

The bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana further directed that internet services remain undisturbed. Lawyers and journalists were not to be obstructed from carrying out their professional duties. The court also issued notice to the Centre while hearing a plea seeking contempt proceedings over alleged violations involving Metro and train-service restrictions.

The directions set boundaries for the security response. Authorities could still act where law and order required it, but peaceful gatherings, communications, transport, and professional work were not to be disrupted unlawfully. The court also ordered removal of the Section 163 notice board outside its premises.

Mass detentions can stop protesters from reaching a rally, separate them from other participants, and create fear around lawful assembly. The article reports that more than 7,000 people were detained, including opposition leaders and activists. Such action can also burden families and legal representatives seeking information about detainees.

Transport and public-space restrictions affect people who are not part of the protest. CJP activists said Metro station closures, train-service suspensions, and market shutdowns inconvenienced ordinary citizens. Barricades can lengthen journeys, interrupt work, and prevent access to shops or appointments. Internet restrictions, if imposed, can further limit communication and news access.

The Supreme Court’s directions reflect these competing effects. Authorities may respond to genuine law-and-order risks, but the court said peaceful people must not be illegally detained and essential services should function. Future enforcement will be judged by whether it protects safety without imposing unnecessary disruption on Delhi residents.

Independent electoral rolls are essential because elections depend on an accurate list of eligible voters. If names are wrongly removed, duplicated, or altered, some citizens may be unable to vote while confidence in the result suffers. Election administration must therefore be able to review rolls without improper political pressure and explain its decisions.

Peaceful protest provides a lawful way to question those decisions. In this case, the CJP used a protest to demand the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged SIR irregularities. The Supreme Court’s warning against illegally detaining peaceful gatherings protects a channel for public scrutiny, even while authorities address stone-throwing or other offences.

Together, trustworthy rolls and protected civic action create accountability around elections. The article does not establish whether the alleged SIR irregularities occurred. It does show why transparent procedures, independent oversight, and proportionate policing matter when election administration becomes contested.