Anti-CEC protests continue; journalists detained despite SC order, Rahul Gandhi announces march to Supreme Court as Delhi braces for fresh curbs

The anti-CEC protests are demonstrations calling for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar to resign. They were organised by youth organisations and involved student, workers’ and political groups. The demand matters because the CEC is connected to the conduct of elections, making public confidence in that office especially important. However, this article does not explain the specific allegations or reasons behind the demand for Kumar’s resignation.

Protests began at Jantar Mantar but spread after security forces blocked every entrance to the designated site. Marches by AISF, SFI, DYFI, KYS, AISA, RWPI and Disha Students’ Organisation moved through Connaught Place. Protesters were detained, and activists alleged beatings, which Delhi Police denied. The police said protesters were not cooperating during detention.

The demonstrations continued on October 11, with CJP leaders saying they would continue until the CEC resigned. Rahul Gandhi announced a march to the Supreme Court for October 12. Security was expected to tighten again, while CJP leaders planned to seek a new date for a peaceful protest at Jantar Mantar.

The Supreme Court intervened after major restrictions were imposed around the protest. On October 10, 45 metro stations were shut and internet services were blocked near Jantar Mantar. After the court’s hearing and a reported rap, metro and internet services resumed on Sunday. Security arrangements were also considerably relaxed for part of the day. These developments mattered because they appeared to restore public movement and communication while recognising the importance of covering the protests.

The article does not provide the Supreme Court’s full written directions. It reports their practical effect instead. Despite the intervention, at least seven journalists were detained while reporting from different locations. Some wore identity cards, and many were recording on phones. Police said reporters were too close to protesters and may have been detained because of confusion.

The renewed detentions raised concerns because they occurred after the court’s intervention. Protesters also alleged beatings, while police denied the claims. Security was expected to tighten again on October 12 after Rahul Gandhi announced a march to the Supreme Court.

The restrictions were extensive, but the article gives only partial figures for Sunday’s detentions. On Saturday, 45 metro stations were closed in the capital, and internet services were blocked around Jantar Mantar. Both services resumed Sunday after the Supreme Court’s intervention. The closures disrupted movement, while the internet shutdown limited communication and reporting around the protest area.

At least seven journalists were detained on Sunday in different parts of the city. The opening account also refers to around a dozen journalists detained that day, showing that the article contains two different estimates. Police said some reporters were working too close to protesters and may have been detained because of confusion. Many wore identity cards and were filming on phones.

There was no official Delhi Police announcement of the total number of detentions on Sunday. Therefore, the article supports a firm figure of 45 closed metro stations and at least seven detained journalists, but not a complete Sunday detention total. Protesters from several groups were detained across Connaught Place.

The protests moved because security forces blocked all entrances to Jantar Mantar, the designated protest site. With access cut off, Connaught Place became the new centre of the agitation. Its location in the heart of New Delhi made it a visible alternative for marches, even though the area remained heavily barricaded. The shift showed how restrictions at one site redirected demonstrations elsewhere.

Several groups marched through Connaught Place. AISF, SFI, DYFI and KYS were followed by AISA, then RWPI and Disha Students’ Organisation. Security personnel detained all of them. Women SFI activists conducting a Tiranga Yatra were detained after 6 p.m. and taken away by bus. SFI called the detention illegal and alleged male officers beat the women; police denied activists’ broader allegations of beatings.

At least seven journalists were also detained in different parts of the city while covering the protests. Some wore identity cards and were filming on phones. By evening, personnel detained people who were merely speaking to the media. CJP leaders planned to seek another date for a peaceful Jantar Mantar protest.

Jantar Mantar is a designated site for protests in New Delhi. Its importance comes from providing an officially recognised place where demonstrators can gather, express demands and organise publicly. In this episode, access to that site was blocked, so the protest shifted into Connaught Place. The restriction changed where people could assemble and increased the confrontation between protesters and security forces.

The article says security forces continued blocking every entrance to Jantar Mantar. Student groups therefore marched in Connaught Place, where AISF, SFI, DYFI, KYS, AISA, RWPI and Disha Students’ Organisation were detained. CJP leaders Ashutosh Ranka, Saurav Das and Ms. Singh planned to visit the Parliament Street police station to request a date for a peaceful protest at Jantar Mantar.

Their proposed return shows why the site remained important. Ranka said police could give them a date within 24 hours, or the group would issue another protest call. The article does not explain the formal rules governing access to Jantar Mantar, but it clearly presents the site as the designated venue.

India’s Constitution protects political protest mainly through Article 19. Citizens have the rights to freedom of speech and expression, peaceful assembly without arms, and association. Press reporting is protected through freedom of speech and expression, although the Constitution does not create a separate press-rights article. These protections allow criticism, reporting and peaceful collective action, which are central to democratic accountability.

Authorities may restrict these rights only through valid law and for constitutionally recognised reasons. Assembly and expression can be limited for public order, security of the State, sovereignty and integrity, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. Restrictions must also be reasonable and applied lawfully. Detaining journalists merely for reporting, or dispersing peaceful protesters without lawful justification, can raise constitutional concerns.

The article reports blocked access, metro closures, an internet shutdown and renewed detentions after Supreme Court intervention. It does not provide the legal orders or court directions in detail. Delhi Police denied beatings and said protesters were not cooperating, while journalists were allegedly too close to protesters.

The Chief Election Commissioner is the senior member of India’s Election Commission, the constitutional body responsible for supervising and controlling elections. Its work includes managing election procedures, overseeing election administration and helping enforce rules governing campaigns and voting. The article identifies Gyanesh Kumar as the current CEC in this dispute, but it does not describe his duties or the allegations against him in detail.

Independence matters because voters and political parties must believe that election rules are applied impartially. If the commission can make decisions without pressure from the government or parties, its actions are more likely to be accepted. If it appears politically influenced, losing sides may question results, enforcement and the fairness of the process. That can weaken confidence even when voting formally continues.

The protests specifically demanded Kumar’s resignation, but the article gives no stated reason for that demand. Youth organisations continued demonstrations, while CJP leaders said protests would continue until he stepped down. Rahul Gandhi’s planned march showed the issue had widened into a larger democratic and constitutional protest.