Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on October 2 defended the Election Commission of India (ECI) as activists of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and other civil society groups gathered at Mumbai’s Shivaji Park demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and raising objections to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Fadnavis said the allegations against the poll panel had been countered by the Election Commission’s recent clarification and described the criticism as a “fake narrative”.
The protesters, however, maintained that the SIR process requires greater transparency and accountability. The ECI has said that decisions relating to the SIR were taken unanimously and has announced measures including door-to-door assistance by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) for voters who received notices over unmapped entries or discrepancies. The protest took place despite Mumbai Police previously denying permission for the gathering at Shivaji Park, citing existing restrictions, civic clearance issues and concerns over traffic and disruption.
Protest Meets Pushback
Hundreds of CJP supporters gathered at Shivaji Park on Gandhi Jayanti, with the organisation demanding Kumar’s resignation over what it describes as irregularities in the electoral-roll revision process. The group has also called for wider reforms in the functioning of the Election Commission.
CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke had announced a nationwide campaign beginning in Mumbai and said the protest would continue despite the denial of permission. Reports from the venue said heavy police deployment was in place, while Shiv Sena (UBT) and Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) have extended support to the agitation. At the same time, a separate group identifying itself as “Gen Next Mumbai” protested against the CJP demonstration.
Residents around Shivaji Park also raised concerns about repeated demonstrations at the venue, citing noise, traffic and disruption to daily life. Mumbai Police had earlier said it could not grant permission for the proposed gathering under existing court directions and government guidelines, while also pointing to the lack of civic clearance and the possibility of traffic congestion.
CJP, meanwhile, argued that denying permission amounted to restricting citizens’ right to protest and proceeded with its planned agitation. These competing concerns have placed the debate not only around the Election Commission and SIR, but also around how public spaces should be used for demonstrations.
What The EC Clarified
The protest comes days after the Election Commission sought to address questions surrounding the SIR and reports of differences within the three-member poll panel. In its September 26 statement, the ECI said the nationwide SIR order issued in June 2025 had received unanimous approval from the Commission and was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court.
It also said the schedules for later phases were approved unanimously. The Commission rejected the suggestion that a letter sent to the Cabinet Secretary represented a policy disagreement over the SIR, saying it concerned the functioning of an officer on deputation.
The Commission also announced changes intended to reduce difficulties for voters. Under the revised arrangement, BLOs will visit the homes of people who have received notices for being “unmapped” or having logical discrepancies, collect the required documents and upload them to the ECINet system for consideration by the Electoral Registration Officer.
Such voters generally will not need to appear personally for hearings, which will be held online in exceptional circumstances. The ECI has also directed authorities to establish help desks and special camps for people including those living in night shelters, labourers, poor and homeless citizens.
Fadnavis, speaking in Mumbai as the protest was under way, backed the Commission’s explanation. “The entire matter has been exposed,” he said, adding that after the press conference by the three Election Commissioners, the “fake narrative” against the poll panel had been “busted”.
He further said attempts to continue pushing that narrative would not succeed. His remarks directly contrasted with the protesters’ position that the Election Commission must face greater scrutiny over the SIR process.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The concerns raised over electoral rolls deserve to be addressed through facts, transparent procedures and accessible avenues for voters to raise objections. At the same time, disagreements over the Election Commission should not become a reason for hostility between citizens, authorities or opposing groups. Peaceful protest is an important form of democratic participation, while authorities also have a responsibility to communicate restrictions clearly and ensure that public spaces remain accessible without unnecessary disruption to residents and essential services.
The Election Commission’s clarification, the government’s defence and the protesters’ objections should all be examined against verifiable evidence rather than political rhetoric. As the debate over SIR continues, how can citizens, authorities and political groups create more space for peaceful protest while ensuring that concerns over electoral transparency are addressed constructively?
