LAWYERS RAISE EMERGENCY ALARM OVER DELHI’S MASSIVE SECURITY CRACKDOWN AHEAD OF CJP RALLY
October 9, 2026
Senior lawyers have launched a sharp attack on the Narendra Modi government over sweeping security restrictions imposed in Delhi ahead of the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) proposed protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, describing the measures as an unprecedented assault on fundamental rights and democratic freedoms.
The protest, scheduled for Saturday, October 10, has triggered extensive security preparations across the national capital. The restrictions reportedly include the planned closure of 57 metro stations, cancellation of trains, possible internet curbs, extensive police barricading and the detention of people travelling towards Delhi to participate in the demonstration. The measures have prompted comparisons with the Emergency era, with critics accusing the government of treating peaceful political dissent as a security threat.
Colin Gonsalves, a senior advocate of the Supreme Court and founder of the Human Rights Law Network, described the preparations as a “war against the people”. He argued that the planned demonstration was intended primarily to use satire, songs, poetry and public criticism to challenge the government rather than to engage in violence. According to Gonsalves, the authorities were attempting to prevent a large-scale public gathering because they feared being ridiculed by protesters.
Kamini Jaiswal, another senior Supreme Court advocate and member of the Committee on Judicial Accountability, condemned the restrictions as a sweeping curtailment of fundamental rights. She questioned the legality and proportionality of measures affecting transport, movement and access to the capital, arguing that restrictions imposed in the name of public order were also inconveniencing ordinary citizens with no connection to the protest.
Jaiswal pointed to reports of metro stations being closed, railway services being disrupted and vehicles being stopped and checked. She also raised concerns about people allegedly being asked to establish their reasons for visiting Delhi and provide hotel reservations. She questioned whether such restrictions were compatible with constitutional freedoms, particularly the right to move freely.
Rajya Sabha member and senior advocate Kapil Sibal also criticised the government’s response, arguing that the demonstrators were demanding electoral accountability rather than threatening public safety. The opposition has demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over allegations concerning electoral-roll revisions, particularly the Special Intensive Revision exercise. Sibal questioned why the government appeared determined to protect the election chief instead of addressing the concerns being raised by protesters.
Delhi Police has denied permission for the proposed demonstration, citing prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the late submission of the organisers’ application and alleged violations during earlier protests. The police has maintained that its restrictions are intended to prevent disorder, control crowd movement near sensitive locations and manage traffic.
Gonsalves challenged the requirement for prior police permission to hold a demonstration at Jantar Mantar, a designated protest location. He argued that the permission process could be used to delay or obstruct peaceful assemblies and described the deployment of large numbers of paramilitary personnel and Delhi Police officers as disproportionate to the nature of the planned gathering.
The controversy has also reached the Supreme Court. Sibal led a group of senior lawyers in challenging the proposed closure of metro stations, while the court separately urged the Centre to ensure that metro and railway services were not brought to a complete halt, stressing the need to protect commuters from sweeping disruption.
The confrontation has transformed the planned CJP demonstration into a wider debate over the limits of state power, the right to peaceful assembly and the ability of citizens to criticise the government. While the authorities have invoked public-order concerns to justify their preparations, senior lawyers contend that restrictions of this scale risk undermining the very constitutional freedoms that democratic institutions are meant to protect.
