TRICOLOUR BECOMES THE FLASHPOINT OF A NEW POLITICAL STORM AS RAHUL GANDHI CONDEMNS CJP LEADERS’ FIVE-DAY JAIL TERM
October 14, 2026
Congress leader and Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday condemned the decision to send Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) co-convenors Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka to five days of judicial custody, describing their detention as an act of cowardice and arguing that peacefully displaying the national flag cannot constitute a crime. The decision has triggered a fresh political confrontation over the right to protest, the status of Jantar Mantar as a designated demonstration site and the use of police powers against political activists.
“Waving the Tricolour at Jantar Mantar in a peaceful protest is not a crime. Jailing youth for it is an act of cowardice,” Gandhi said in a statement posted on social media. He called on students, young people, journalists and opposition parties to stand together in defence of constitutional rights, declaring that different organisations could unite around a common democratic cause. He also vowed that Jantar Mantar would be reclaimed as a place for public dissent.
The two CJP leaders were remanded to five days of judicial custody by a special executive magistrate on Wednesday and lodged in Delhi’s Tihar Jail. Delhi Police alleged that Das and Ranka had breached barricades, entered the area without authorisation, violated the conditions of their peace bonds and obstructed personnel carrying out their duties. The leaders had previously been released after an earlier detention, subject to conditions requiring them to maintain peace and good behaviour for one year.
The latest arrests followed the CJP’s attempt on Tuesday to return to Jantar Mantar, where party members unfurled the national flag and raised slogans demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The proposed demonstration formed part of the party’s continuing campaign against alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The dispute has intensified since Delhi Police removed Jantar Mantar from the list of designated protest venues on October 12, replacing it with Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in East Delhi. The authorities have maintained that demonstrations must take place at approved locations and comply with applicable public-order requirements. The CJP, however, has strongly opposed the decision, arguing that the historic site has long served as a public platform for democratic expression.
DIPKE ACCUSES GOVERNMENT OF AN ‘UNOFFICIAL EMERGENCY’
CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke condemned the judicial custody order, challenging Prime Minister Narendra Modi to declare an Emergency officially if the government intended to restrict political dissent.
Speaking in Nagpur, Dipke questioned what offence the two leaders had committed by displaying the national flag at Jantar Mantar. He described their five-day detention as evidence of what he called an “unofficial emergency”, alleging that the government was using its authority to intimidate young people and suppress peaceful demonstrations.
Dipke argued that the action went beyond the immediate dispute over the protest venue, portraying it as an attempt to discourage citizens from questioning the government and the Election Commission. He insisted that the CJP would not abandon its campaign and maintained that its objectives overlapped with those of opposition parties seeking electoral accountability.
At the same time, Dipke clarified that the CJP remained an independent pressure group rather than an organisation formally subordinate to the INDIA bloc. He said the two movements could pursue the same cause without giving up their separate identities.
The CJP’s campaign focuses on allegations concerning the Election Commission’s handling of the SIR exercise and demands Kumar’s resignation. The allegations of electoral manipulation remain disputed, with the BJP and the Election Commission rejecting claims of deliberate wrongdoing.
OPPOSITION QUESTIONS CONTRASTING POLICE ACTION
The detention of Das and Ranka prompted criticism from several opposition leaders, who questioned whether the response was proportionate to the conduct alleged by the authorities.
Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) spokesperson Anish Gawande drew attention to the contrasting treatment of members of the Hindu Kranti Dal, who had been arrested over allegations that they assaulted protesters and were granted bail on the same day. Gawande questioned why the CJP leaders had been sent to Tihar Jail for five days while the other accused were released.
Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra also challenged the trespassing allegation, arguing that Jantar Mantar belonged to citizens and questioning whether unfurling the national flag there could reasonably be treated as a serious offence. Her remarks reflected the opposition’s wider contention that the authorities were using the change in the site’s official status to suppress dissent.
CJP organiser Ajinkya Shinde accused the government of misusing its powers to curtail fundamental rights. He highlighted the fact that the custody order coincided with Ranka’s birthday and argued that the detention would not discourage the organisation’s supporters.
Student leader Neha Bora similarly questioned whether displaying the national flag had become a punishable act, while lawyer and author Prashant Bhushan asked whether entering a public location and unfurling the Tricolour necessarily amounted to an offence after the venue’s designation had been withdrawn.
These objections centre on the legal basis and proportionality of the custody order. The court’s decision followed allegations of unauthorised entry and violations of peace-bond conditions, while the CJP and its supporters have portrayed the action as punishment for peaceful political expression.
POLICE DEFEND THE CASE, LAWYER CHALLENGES THE ORDER
Delhi Police has maintained that the protesters entered restricted premises, obstructed officers performing official duties and repeatedly attempted to disturb public order. The authorities have also alleged that social media activity was used to encourage others to join the gathering.
The CJP’s legal head, Ratna Singh, disputed the police account, arguing that no public call had been issued asking other protesters to assemble at Jantar Mantar. She accused the police of misleading the magistrate over the circumstances surrounding the gathering.
Advocate Abhisht Hela, who represents Das, Ranka and Shinde, also questioned the legality of the custody order. He argued that the decision had been made without adequate judicial application of mind and that the authorities had relied on assumptions about what the leaders might do rather than sufficient evidence of a breach of their peace bonds.
Hela described the order as a serious departure from legal safeguards governing preventive action and said the defence intended to challenge the decision. His objections remain arguments advanced on behalf of the accused, while the allegations against them are subject to the legal process.
A WIDER CONFRONTATION OVER PROTEST RIGHTS
The custody of Das and Ranka has added another chapter to the confrontation between the CJP and the authorities over electoral reform and the regulation of demonstrations in Delhi. What began as a campaign demanding the chief election commissioner’s resignation has expanded into a dispute over the availability of public protest venues, the scope of preventive policing and the protection afforded to citizens exercising their constitutional rights.
The competing accounts remain sharply divided. Police say the leaders breached restrictions and violated peace-bond conditions; the CJP and opposition parties maintain that the response is excessive and that the display of the national flag during peaceful protest should not result in imprisonment.
The immediate legal question concerns the basis for the five-day judicial custody order and the allegations supporting it. The wider political question is whether the new arrangements governing protests in Delhi will allow citizens meaningful opportunities to assemble and express dissent.
With Rahul Gandhi publicly backing the detained leaders and Dipke vowing to continue the campaign, the case has become a significant flashpoint in the national debate over civil liberties, electoral accountability and the limits of state power. The CJP has signalled that the detentions will not end its movement, while the authorities remain committed to enforcing the revised rules governing demonstrations in the capital.
