Delhi protests: Saffron-clad groups threaten demonstrators for second day

Saffron-clad groups carrying sticks appeared around central Delhi protest sites for a second consecutive day. They confronted demonstrators, issued threats and moved through Connaught Place while prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS were in force. The episode raised concerns about protesters’ safety and the enforcement of official restrictions.

The confrontation followed Saturday’s alleged assault on DDU Marg. Men wearing saffron scarves reportedly shouted religious slogans, accused protesters of being “anti-national” and “anti-Modi,” and said some demonstrators deserved to be beaten. Groups also shouted support for Delhi Police using batons. A video appeared to show two men assaulting a man and manhandling a woman.

Police arrested four men in connection with Saturday’s alleged assault. Yet similar threats were reported on Sunday. The incidents occurred during demonstrations demanding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation, with thousands of protesters detained across the capital. The article does not report further arrests from Sunday’s confrontation.

The Hindu Raksha Dal is identified in the article as an organisation led by Pinki Chaudhary. The article does not provide its formal structure or membership details. It does show the group claiming responsibility for an assault on protesters and publicly defending confrontational action against people demonstrating against the Election Commission.

After police arrested four men, Chaudhary shared a widely circulated assault video on X. He claimed the men shown were workers from his organisation, which he described as one that “delivers on its promises.” He also said the outfit could set the minds of “cockroaches” straight. The footage appeared to show two men attacking a male protester and manhandling a woman.

In another post, Chaudhary called the men “warriors” of Sanatan Dharma. He said the group had no interest in politics but would target anyone who targeted Sanatan. He tagged the Prime Minister’s Office and the offices of the Uttar Pradesh and Delhi chief ministers.

Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita generally allows an Executive Magistrate to issue written orders in urgent situations involving a likely danger, public nuisance or disturbance. Such orders can restrict certain actions or gatherings for a limited period. The article describes these as prohibitory orders, not as a criminal verdict or a ban on every form of protest.

The provision mattered because demonstrations were taking place in central Delhi while the orders were active. According to PTI, several men carrying sticks still moved around Connaught Place, confronted protesters and issued threats. Their presence showed the practical challenge of enforcing restrictions during a tense public gathering.

The article does not specify the exact terms, duration or issuing authority of the orders. It does report arrests linked to Saturday’s alleged assault and continuing threats on Sunday. The incident therefore focused attention on whether official restrictions were being effectively observed and enforced.

The demonstrations were large enough for the article to describe them as involving thousands of protesters. They took place across Delhi and included protest activity in central areas such as Connaught Place. The scale mattered because the events involved extensive police action, alleged assaults and groups of counter-protesters or supporters confronting demonstrators.

The article states that thousands of protesters were detained across the capital. It does not provide a precise total, a breakdown by location or the legal basis for each detention. It separately reports that police arrested four men in connection with Saturday’s alleged assault on DDU Marg.

The large demonstrations were demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Protesters cited alleged irregularities in the Election Commission’s functioning and in its Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. With threats continuing for a second day, the situation combined mass detention, disputed electoral concerns and alleged street violence.

The demonstrations centered on claims that the Election Commission’s functioning involved irregularities. Protesters also objected to the Commission’s Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, of electoral rolls. They connected these concerns to a demand for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The article does not explain the specific alleged irregularities, identify particular constituencies or describe how the revision was carried out. It only states that protesters were demanding Kumar’s resignation over alleged problems involving the Commission and the electoral-roll revision. That distinction matters because the report describes accusations rather than confirmed wrongdoing.

The dispute unfolded alongside mass demonstrations and detentions across Delhi. Groups of men accused protesters of using “anti-national” and “anti-Modi” slogans, while some openly defended violence. The resulting confrontation shifted attention from the electoral claims to public safety, alleged assault and the authorities’ response.

Threats and violence can make people fear attending or continuing a protest. They can also turn a demonstration into a confrontation, making the original issue harder to hear. When such conduct occurs while police are present, questions may arise about whether officials can protect demonstrators and enforce restrictions. The article shows these concerns without establishing that police caused or permitted the violence.

A widely circulated video appeared to show two men assaulting a male protester and manhandling a woman, pushing her down and pulling at her clothes. Police personnel also appeared to be at the scene. Groups elsewhere accused demonstrators of being “anti-national” and said they deserved to be thrashed. Four men were later arrested over Saturday’s alleged assault.

The threats continued into Sunday, despite Section 163 orders. That meant the dispute involved both immediate safety and enforcement. If confrontations continue, authorities may face more arrests and detentions, while protesters may find it harder to demonstrate freely. The article does not report later legal outcomes.

The Election Commission of India is the constitutional authority responsible for administering elections and preparing or supervising electoral rolls. Electoral rolls are fundamental because they identify eligible voters and provide the basis for participation. An independent election authority helps apply electoral rules consistently and gives competing political groups greater confidence in the process.

The article does not explain the Commission’s legal powers in detail. It reports that protesters accused the Commission of irregularities in its functioning and objected to its Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. They demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. These were allegations raised during demonstrations, not findings established by the article.

The events show why trust in election administration matters. When people question voter lists or the body managing them, demonstrations can grow and become politically charged. In this case, thousands of protesters were detained, while alleged counter-protesters issued threats and four men were arrested. The article does not state what review or official response will follow.