CJP TURNS THE SPOTLIGHT ON MODI AND SHAH AFTER DELHI CRACKDOWN, QUESTIONS THE POLITICAL SHIELD AROUND ELECTION CHIEF
October 11, 2026
Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka on Sunday accused the Narendra Modi government of protecting Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar amid allegations of electoral irregularities, while alleging that Delhi Police violated their rights during preventive detention ahead of the party’s proposed demonstration at Jantar Mantar.
Addressing a press conference after their release, Das directly challenged Prime Minister Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah to explain why they were continuing to support Kumar. He questioned whether the chief election commissioner possessed information about the 2024 Lok Sabha elections that could explain the government’s alleged reluctance to act against him. These remarks reflected the CJP leader’s political allegations and did not establish any wrongdoing by the individuals named.
The CJP had planned its October 10 demonstration to demand Kumar’s resignation over alleged irregularities in electoral-roll revision. The proposed protest was prevented from proceeding as planned after Delhi Police refused permission and mounted an extensive security operation across the capital.
Das alleged that he, Ranka and CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke were forcibly taken into custody immediately after their flight landed in Delhi on Saturday. The party’s legal affairs head, Ratna Singh, was also detained. All four were released on Sunday morning after being required to maintain peace for one year.
The CJP leaders sharply criticised the conduct of the police during their detention. Das alleged that officers seized their mobile phones without providing the necessary documentation and denied them access to lawyers. He said the prolonged police possession of their devices had raised concerns that the phones might have been hacked or cloned, or that material could potentially be planted on them and subsequently presented as evidence. These allegations have not been independently verified.
“We have a legal right to a lawyer but police said no. They said that under detention, we have no rights,” Das alleged, arguing that the treatment of the party’s leaders raised serious questions about procedural safeguards and accountability.
He also described the security arrangements across Delhi as excessive and claimed that approximately 40,000 security personnel had been deployed to contain the protest. Das alleged that the closure of more than 50 Metro stations and restrictions affecting roads and shops were intended to create a negative impression of the youth-led movement. He characterised the situation as resembling an Emergency and accused the state of confronting citizens who wanted to raise concerns about the electoral process.
Despite the crackdown, Das declared that the CJP would continue its agitation and appealed to citizens to take to the streets. He accused the government of turning the dispute over the chief election commissioner into a confrontation with its own people, while Ranka said the authorities should be ashamed of allowing the situation to escalate in this manner.
The leaders also raised concerns about the treatment of Dipke following the death of his grandmother while he was in custody. Ranka alleged that police personnel had surrounded Dipke with cameras and microphones when informing him of the bereavement, turning a deeply personal moment into a public spectacle. Dipke left for Maharashtra after his release to attend the final rites.
The CJP leaders further alleged that independent journalists covering the youth movement had faced harassment and assaults, including demands that they wear identification tags. Das described the alleged treatment of journalists as an attack on press freedom and argued that reporting on the protest should not expose media workers to intimidation.
The controversy follows a wider dispute over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and allegations that the process has undermined voting rights. The CJP and other opposition groups have demanded greater transparency from the Election Commission, while the BJP and the poll authorities have rejected allegations of deliberate electoral manipulation.
The police action has therefore generated a second front in the dispute: alongside the original demand for Kumar’s resignation, the CJP is now challenging the conduct of the security operation, the handling of detained leaders and access to legal representation. The party’s accusations remain claims that require independent scrutiny, but its decision to continue mobilising signals that the confrontation is unlikely to end with the release of its leaders.
With the CJP insisting that it will not be intimidated by detention and the authorities maintaining their responsibility to preserve public order, the episode has intensified the debate over electoral accountability, police powers, press freedom and the space available for peaceful political dissent in India.
