CJP protest day 2: How Delhi unfolded amid fresh detentions, Supreme Court intervention and calls for CEC’s resignation

On Sunday, the second day of protests, CJP supporters and student groups marched towards Jantar Mantar in Delhi. They demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Police detained around 200 students and protesters, while security forces guarded key areas and barricades restricted movement.

The protests began over allegations of irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Members of the Students’ Federation of India, All India Students’ Association and Krantikari Yuva Sangathan were detained. CPI(M) MP John Brittas and AISA president Neha Bora were also taken into custody.

The Supreme Court directed authorities not to illegally detain people gathering peacefully. It also asked officials to keep metro services and internet connectivity uninterrupted, subject to law-and-order needs. CJP leaders said protests would continue, including outside Delhi, and the INDIA bloc planned another march.

A Special Intensive Revision, commonly called SIR, is a detailed exercise to review electoral rolls. It is meant to check voter records, identify errors or outdated entries, and ensure that eligible voters appear correctly. The process matters because electoral rolls determine who can vote in an election.

The source article does not describe the exact procedures used in this SIR. It does state that the CJP and opposition groups alleged irregularities in the revision of electoral rolls. Those allegations triggered protests demanding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation.

If a revision is accurate, it can make voter lists more reliable. If it is handled improperly, eligible people may be left out or records may be wrongly included or changed. The article does not establish that irregularities occurred. It reports that protests and legal proceedings followed the allegations, with the agitation expected to continue.

Delhi Police detained around 200 students and protesters on Sunday, the second day of demonstrations. The march was heading towards Jantar Mantar, and participants were raising slogans demanding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation. The detentions took place amid heavy security across Delhi.

Members of the Students’ Federation of India, All India Students’ Association and Krantikari Yuva Sangathan were among those detained. CPI(M) MP John Brittas and AISA president Neha Bora were also taken into custody. Separately, CJP leaders Abhijeet Dipke, Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das were produced before an executive magistrate and later released.

The police also registered 20 FIRs linked to Saturday’s demonstrations. Those cases included alleged assaults on police personnel and obstruction of public servants. The Supreme Court said peaceful assembly could not justify illegal detention, while recognising authorities’ powers under the law. Further protests were planned.

The Supreme Court directed authorities to respect peaceful assembly during the protests. It said people gathering peacefully should not be illegally detained. At the same time, the Court recognised that authorities could act under the law when genuine law-and-order concerns existed.

The Court also asked officials to ensure that metro services and internet connectivity remained uninterrupted, subject to those law-and-order requirements. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was asked to ensure that lawyers, journalists and others could carry out their professional duties without obstruction.

These directions came as a special bench heard a plea seeking contempt proceedings over alleged violations of an earlier direction concerning restrictions on metro and train services. The bench, comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, issued notice to the Centre. The directions placed public movement, communication and professional access at the centre of the dispute.

An executive magistrate is an administrative official who can deal with certain preventive and public-order matters. In this case, CJP leaders Abhijeet Dipke, Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das were produced before one after detention. The article does not describe the magistrate’s full powers or the hearing’s details.

Delhi Police said the three were released after furnishing a ₹50,000 bond to maintain peace and good behaviour for one year. A bond is a formal undertaking. It generally requires a person to promise lawful conduct, sometimes with money attached if the undertaking is breached. Dipke, however, said he had not signed a bond.

The party called the release a legal victory. Das alleged that police took away their phones without issuing seizure memos, though no evidence of hacking or cloning was provided. The bond did not end the political dispute. Ranka said demonstrations would continue until Kumar resigned.

Electoral rolls are the records used to identify people eligible to vote. If a revision contains serious irregularities, eligible voters could be left off the list or face difficulty voting. Incorrect entries could also remain or be added, weakening confidence in the election process. These are general consequences of flawed voter records.

The source article says the CJP and opposition groups alleged irregularities during the Special Intensive Revision. Their protests demanded Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation. However, the article does not provide evidence proving that the alleged problems occurred, how widespread they were, or whether any election result was affected.

The immediate consequences described were protests, detentions, police cases and Supreme Court intervention. The longer-term implication is a continuing dispute over the credibility of electoral administration. CJP leaders said demonstrations would continue, including beyond Delhi, while the INDIA bloc prepared another march and sought judicial intervention over allegations of vote theft.

The Chief Election Commissioner is the senior figure named in the article in connection with India’s election administration. The Election Commission is generally responsible for overseeing the electoral process, including administration of voter records and elections. Its central public purpose is to help ensure that eligible voters can participate and that elections are conducted fairly.

The article links Gyanesh Kumar to the controversy over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. CJP and opposition groups demanded his resignation. The source does not describe his specific actions, the Commission’s response to the allegations, or the exact institutional safeguards used in the revision.

The dispute shows why election administration matters. Concerns about voter lists can become political and legal conflicts. The Supreme Court intervened over protest restrictions, while Congress leaders Mallikarjun Kharge and Rahul Gandhi sought a meeting with the Chief Justice of India over allegations of vote theft. The article says protests were expected to continue.