Police Detain Hundreds as Delhi Protest Targets Election Chief

Buses carried away more than 500 people after police moved to stop a protest near Jantar Mantar on October 2. Among those detained were Aam Aadmi Party leaders Atishi and Saurabh Bharadwaj, student activists and public figures, including activist Yogendra Yadav. Police had denied permission for the gathering and placed restrictions across New Delhi district. The crowd had come to call for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar to resign. ^9,11

Jantar Mantar was the meeting point for groups with a shared demand but separate calls to action. Student organisations AISA, SFI and DYFI, Congress youth groups and AAP members protested over alleged problems in the Special Intensive Revision, a review of electoral rolls. They accused the Election Commission of mishandling voter lists and raised concerns about voters being removed. Police blocked routes and detained people as they tried to reach the site; AAP leader Sanjay Singh said he was stopped while heading to Parliament to raise the issue. ^2,3,21

Those blocked routes also changed daily life across central Delhi. Authorities closed entry and exit at 11 metro stations, later reporting 12 closures, while keeping some stations open for transfers. Internet access was suspended around Jantar Mantar, and police cited public safety, order and traffic as reasons for the restrictions. The competing accounts matter: police described a gathering without permission and a security operation, while protesters said they were exercising a right to speak about elections. The sources do not establish whether the alleged voter removals or other problems occurred. ^10,17,27,37

That unresolved dispute now sits alongside the question of how far authorities can restrict a protest over the body that oversees elections. On Gandhi Jayanti, protesters and opposition leaders criticised the detentions as especially striking on a day associated with non-violence. AAP figures urged supporters to keep pressing their demand, while the Election Commission’s handling of the voter-roll review remained at the centre of the dispute. The next step rests with the commission and its chief, Kumar, who must respond to the allegations. ^1,4,25