Delhi’s October: The protest that could not gather

By the morning of October 10, central Delhi had become a maze of barricades. People had come to protest the Election Commission, but finding one another had become a struggle in itself.

At Connaught Place, I watched small groups check their phones, ask for directions and turn back when they met a barricade. Some tried another road. Others stood uncertainly, unsure where to go next.

The protest was there. The gathering was not.

The previous evening, I had watched security personnel being briefed and deployed across central Delhi. Metro entrances were closing, and roads were being barricaded. The city appeared to be preparing for a major demonstration. It also seemed determined to prevent demonstrators from coming together.

The problem was not simply that Delhi Police had denied permission for a demonstration. Restrictions on movement and access to public spaces, followed by detentions, made it increasingly difficult for protesters to assemble.

October 10 raised a basic constitutional question: when the state regulates a protest so extensively that people struggle to gather, how meaningful does the right to peaceful assembly remain?

The issue is not whether authorities may impose restrictions. It is whether those restrictions are proportionate and leave citizens with a genuine opportunity to make their dissent visible.

The demonstrations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls brought these questions into focus.

A protest under restrictions

The controversy surrounding the SIR had been building for months. In September, The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections at least fourteen times over ten months concerning decisions and procedures within the Commission. The Commission acknowledged the notes but maintained that its decisions were unanimous.

The reported disagreements did not establish wrongdoing. Yet critics questioned whether the SIR’s procedures were sufficiently transparent. Electoral rolls determine who can participate in elections, and errors can leave eligible voters struggling to establish their right to vote. By early October, these concerns had moved from public statements to the streets.

On October 2, a small group of protesters gathered near the McDonald’s outlet on Janpath. The Indian Express reported an exchange between police officers discussing whether to detain the demonstrators. One reportedly asked, “Should we get them inside a bus?” Another replied, “Wait. If they gather in a group of more than 10, pick them up.”

Authorities later said around 550 people had been detained, while media reports put the figure above 700.

The mobilisation grew as the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), founded by Abhijeet Dipke, joined the All India Students’ Association and other groups to organise a demonstration on October 10. The CJP became one of the principal organisers, mobilising protesters around the demand for Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation. Opposition to the SIR gave the movement a wider political context.

Pawan, a 36-year-old IT professional from Andhra Pradesh, told The Indian Express: “The protest is against Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission. But there’s a larger context, I feel. People are upset with the SIR. This is a disenfranchisement of millions of voters.”

Chhai, a 26-year-old resident of Mayur Vihar, offered a more personal explanation: “I felt it was my duty to do this.”

Delhi Police denied permission for the demonstration, citing the timing of the application, restrictions under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and concerns about traffic and public order. The Union Home Ministry made 221 companies of Central Armed Police Forces – approximately 23,000 personnel- available to Delhi Police between October 8 and 12.

That was the force made available, not the number confirmed to have been deployed.

Transport restrictions compounded the difficulty. Metro station gates were scheduled to close from 9 p.m. on October 9 through October 10, alongside restrictions affecting railway services.

On October 10, the Supreme Court questioned the extent of the curbs, describing the orders as “overreaching”. The Solicitor General assured the Court that authorities would reconsider the restrictions and permit regulated services consistent with proportionality and public convenience.

The intervention raised another basic question: how far could authorities restrict ordinary movement in anticipation of a protest?

The protest that could not gather

On October 10, demonstrators appeared at scattered locations: Connaught Place, Raj Ghat, Dilli Haat and the Safdarjung Airport flyover. Instead of assembling in one place, people moved between locations as the planned gathering remained fragmented.

The CJP’s co-convener, Ashutosh Ranka, had told The Indian Express: “Wherever they stop us, we’ll sit. That place becomes Jantar Mantar.”

But the ability to sit down was only part of the problem. Protesters also needed to reach one another, remain together and avoid immediate dispersal.

In Connaught Place, I saw groups of men attacking protesters. The violence unfolded in an already tense atmosphere, with demonstrators scattered across the area and security personnel deployed throughout central Delhi.

Subsequent reporting documented other assaults on demonstrators, including students and women. Four men were arrested in connection with an assault captured in a widely circulated video. Reports placed that incident on DDU Marg, while separate accounts described attacks in Connaught Place and near the MCD Civic Centre.

These incidents should not be conflated. But together, they raised questions about protesters’ safety and the authorities’ response.

Detentions continued across the city. Early reports put the number above 2,000, while later accounts cited substantially higher totals. The figures varied across reports and reporting times, making a single verified count difficult to establish.

In an account published by ThePrint, Soutrik Goswami described spending six hours in a police bus driving around Delhi. “It was a merry-go-round,” he said. He recalled hearing police personnel discussing where to take him: “I could hear police conversations where they were confused about where to finally take me.”

His account offered a glimpse of detention from inside the vehicle: movement controlled by the police, with the destination uncertain.

Reports also carried allegations that some detainees had been assaulted in custody. Delhi Police said it had not received official complaints from the individuals concerned, while indicating it would act if complaints were filed. The allegations warrant investigation through medical records, witness accounts and police documentation.

The scale of the detentions also demands scrutiny of their legal grounds, duration and conditions.

When journalists were detained

Journalists covering the demonstrations were also detained. In an account published by Alt News on October 12, journalist Agniva Ray described being detained while reporting on the crackdown. The Committee to Protect Journalists reported that at least 37 journalists had been detained while covering protests on October 10 and 11 across Delhi and other cities. Published accounts also alleged assaults, seizure of phones and pressure to delete footage.

Documenting public events allows citizens to scrutinise how authorities exercise power. When reporters covering mass detentions are themselves detained, the public’s ability to establish what happened becomes more difficult.

On October 12, Jantar Mantar was denotified as a designated protest site. Authorities identified alternatives, including Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in East Delhi.

The timing alone does not prove retaliation. Authorities can regulate protest sites for reasons of safety, traffic and public order. Yet Jantar Mantar is more than a physical location. It is a recognised space for dissent, where citizens can bring their demands into the political life of the capital.

On October 13, CJP leaders Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka and Ajinkya Shinde were detained after crossing barricades in an attempt to enter the Jantar Mantar area. Organisers described the action as another attempt to prevent the demonstration; police said restrictions had been breached. From the detention bus, Das said: “Jantar Mantar has been breached. We were inside, and now they are detaining us and taking us away.”

The dispute had become, in part, a dispute over where dissent could take place.

The question left behind

Article 19(1)(b) guarantees citizens the right to assemble peacefully and without arms, subject to reasonable restrictions. It does not give organisers an unrestricted right to occupy any location. But restrictions must be justified, proportionate and open to challenge.

Public order cannot become an explanation that ends the discussion before it begins.

The allegations surrounding the SIR remain contested. The Commission has defended its decisions, and the reported objections of its members do not, by themselves, establish wrongdoing. These matters must be examined through evidence and transparent procedures.

But the right to question an institution does not depend on whether every allegation against it is ultimately proved correct.

What stays with me from October 10 is not the scale of the security deployment. It is the small groups moving between barricades in Connaught Place: people checking their phones, asking for directions, trying to find a place where they could stand together.

A protest was planned. People arrived. Yet the gathering itself remained elusive.

The protests may end. The questions they raised will not disappear with the barricades. If even the capital’s most recognisable space for dissent can be withdrawn from that purpose, the question left behind is larger than who may stand at Jantar Mantar.

It is whether the right to be heard remains meaningful when the state can decide, in practice, where a citizen may go to speak.

Also Read: Why does a church hospital get special rates under a public scheme in Mizoram?