The Delhi Police have registered three cases over Friday’s protests near Jantar Mantar, where student groups, political parties and civil society activists sought the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The cases were registered at the Parliament Street and Connaught Place police stations under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for allegedly disobeying a public order.
Police said prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) were in force and prohibited gatherings of five or more people without prior written permission. Around 1,000 people were detained across Delhi, according to police, including political leaders, student activists and civil society members. Protesters, meanwhile, maintained that they were attempting to exercise their democratic right to peacefully demonstrate and raise concerns about electoral rolls.
Three Cases Registered
The three FIRs were filed based on daily diary entries made by police officials, with two cases registered at Parliament Street police station and one at Connaught Place police station, according to senior police officers cited by Hindustan Times. No individual or organisation has been formally named in the accused column of the FIRs, although organisers and organisations involved in proposing or participating in the demonstrations are mentioned in the contents.
The cases invoke Section 223 of the BNS, which deals with disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant. Police officials said the demonstrations took place despite prohibitory restrictions imposed in the area. Under Section 223, conviction can carry simple imprisonment of up to six months, a fine of up to ₹2,500, or both. Where such disobedience causes or risks danger to human life, health or safety, or contributes to a riot or affray, the punishment can extend further.
Before the proposed demonstrations began, the Delhi Police publicly stated that Section 163 of the BNSS had been imposed in the New Delhi area “to ensure public safety, maintenance of public order and smooth traffic movement”. The order prohibited public meetings, processions, demonstrations, picketing, dharnas and slogan-shouting without prior written permission. Police advised citizens and visitors to avoid unauthorised gatherings and warned that violations could invite legal action.
Protesters Demand Accountability
The demonstrations were organised amid growing political and civil-society criticism of the Election Commission’s SIR exercise and calls for Kumar’s resignation. The proposed Jantar Mantar protest was backed by groups including the All India Students’ Association (AISA), Students’ Federation of India (SFI), National Students’ Union of India (NSUI), Indian Youth Congress and Aam Aadmi Party, among others.
The Delhi Police had denied permission for the proposed gathering, citing security and public-order concerns. More than 5,000 security personnel, including district and reserve forces, Rapid Action Force personnel and other paramilitary units, were deployed around New Delhi. Barricades were placed along routes leading to Jantar Mantar, while police vehicles and CCTV surveillance were used to monitor movement in the area.
Despite the restrictions, groups of protesters attempted to gather around Jantar Mantar and nearby roads. Police subsequently detained hundreds of people attempting to reach the protest site. Among those detained were former Delhi Chief Minister Atishi, AAP leader Saurabh Bharadwaj, AISA president Neha Bora and activist Yogendra Yadav, along with other political workers, student activists and civil society members.
Protesters argued that their demonstration was intended to seek accountability from the Election Commission and raise concerns about the electoral-roll revision process. Bharadwaj had earlier said that protesting was a democratic right while alleging that permission for a peaceful demonstration had been sought.
SIR Row Continues
The protests come against the backdrop of the ongoing controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Critics have raised concerns about the deletion of names from electoral rolls and the procedures voters may need to follow to establish their eligibility. The Election Commission, however, has maintained that the revision is an electoral-roll exercise and has introduced measures to help eligible voters who may have been left out.
In a significant development amid the protests, the Election Commission directed authorities in 20 states and Union Territories where SIR has been completed to conduct special drives to enrol eligible voters whose names may have been left out, as well as young and first-time electors. Officials have been asked to compare electoral rolls before and after the revision and facilitate applications through the regular Form 6 process.
The Commission has also said Booth Level Officers may undertake house-to-house visits to identify eligible voters whose names are missing and assist them with enrolment. The move is particularly relevant amid scrutiny of the scale of deletions during the revision. Reports have cited around 13 crore names removed from draft rolls across 30 states and Union Territories, although the figure represents deletions from draft rolls and does not establish that all those removed were eligible voters who were wrongly excluded.
The latest police cases add a legal dimension to an already heated debate over electoral-roll revision, democratic participation and the limits placed on public demonstrations. Meanwhile, the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) has announced another proposed Jantar Mantar protest for October 10 if Kumar does not resign, indicating that the issue is likely to remain in the public spotlight.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The right to question institutions and raise concerns about the electoral process is an important part of a healthy democracy, just as maintaining public safety and complying with lawful restrictions are important responsibilities. The latest developments underline the need for both sides to prioritise transparency, restraint and dialogue rather than allowing political disagreement to deepen into confrontation.
Concerns surrounding electoral rolls should be addressed through accessible procedures, clear explanations and credible grievance-redressal mechanisms, while protests should remain peaceful and responsible. At the same time, enforcement should be proportionate and respectful of citizens’ rights. How can authorities, political groups and citizens create more space for peaceful disagreement while ensuring that genuine concerns about the electoral process are heard and addressed?
Also Read: 75-Year-Old Man Dies Of Heart Attack While Attending CJP Protest At Mumbai’s Shivaji Park
Delhi: The Delhi Police have registered three FIRs in connection with the mass protests demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. Two FIRs were registered at the Parliament Street (Sansad Marg) Police Station, while one FIR was filed at the… https://t.co/IIxabDeeId
— ANI (@ANI) October 3, 2026
