Authorities stepped up security measures across Delhi and neighbouring areas on Saturday, October 10, ahead of a proposed demonstration by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) at Jantar Mantar. The protest was called to demand the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in electoral rolls. YouTuber Dhruv Rathee was detained from his residence in Sector 56, Gurugram, ahead of the planned demonstration, according to police sources cited in media reports. The development came amid preventive police action against people expected to participate in the protest. Several CJP leaders, including party founder and coordinator Abhijeet Dipke, were also reportedly detained after arriving at Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International Airport. Reports identified Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka among the other leaders taken into custody.

Dhruv Rathee Detained From Gurugram Residence

According to reports published on October 10, Dhruv Rathee detained became a major development ahead of the planned gathering at Jantar Mantar. Rathee was reportedly taken into custody from his home in Sector 56, Gurugram, as he prepared to join the demonstration in the national capital. Police sources told media organisations that Rathee intended to participate in the CJP protest. His reported detention came after the Delhi Police denied permission for the proposed gathering, citing security concerns and procedural requirements. Reports also said police personnel had attempted to dissuade him from attending the demonstration, referring to restrictions applicable in Delhi. Rathee nevertheless indicated on social media that he intended to take part.

CJP Leaders Detained After Arriving at Delhi Airport

The police action was not limited to Rathee. CJP founder and coordinator Abhijeet Dipke, along with party leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, were reportedly detained after their flight landed at Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International Airport. According to media reports, the leaders were taken into custody directly from the aircraft before they could proceed towards the planned protest site. Videos and accounts of the incident circulated as the party criticised the police response. The detentions raised questions about how authorities were managing the arrival of people expected to participate in the demonstration. CJP leaders had planned to attend the gathering at Jantar Mantar, where the party intended to raise concerns about electoral roll revisions and demand action against the Chief Election Commissioner. The party described the detentions as an attempt to stop its members from participating in a public demonstration. These characterisations represent the party’s position, while the police had earlier cited security and procedural concerns when refusing permission for the protest.

Why Is CJP Demanding Gyanesh Kumar’s Resignation?

The proposed demonstration was organised around concerns raised by CJP over electoral roll revisions and the functioning of the Election Commission of India. The party called for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, alleging irregularities in the voter-list revision process. Its campaign focused on concerns about how electoral records are reviewed and whether eligible voters could be affected by changes to the lists. Electoral rolls are central to the voting process because they determine who is registered to cast a ballot. Political parties and civil society groups can raise objections about errors, omissions or verification procedures, while the Election Commission is responsible for administering elections and maintaining electoral records under the applicable legal framework. CJP sought to turn its concerns into a public demonstration in Delhi. The proposed event was also referred to by the party as “Jantar Mantar 2.0” in reports about its campaign.

Read Also: Musk Targets Ambani Again Over Reliance, BJP Donations and Starlink

Delhi Police Denied Permission for the Proposed Protest

The Delhi Police had denied permission for the proposed CJP gathering at Jantar Mantar, according to media reports. Authorities cited security concerns and procedural requirements in connection with the decision. With the demonstration still being planned, police increased preventive measures to stop crowds from reaching the intended protest area. Reports said personnel were deployed at several locations across the capital, while people suspected of attempting to join the gathering were detained. The police response also extended beyond the immediate vicinity of Jantar Mantar. Authorities were monitoring movement around central Delhi as they sought to prevent a large gathering from taking place without permission.

Security Tightened Across the National Capital

The proposed gathering prompted heightened security arrangements in several parts of Delhi. Police personnel were deployed to monitor movement, prevent unauthorised gatherings and respond to attempts by protesters to reach Jantar Mantar. Media reports also described restrictions affecting parts of central Delhi, including measures related to public movement and transport. These arrangements were introduced amid concerns that large numbers of demonstrators could converge on the protest area despite the denial of permission. The scale of the operation reflected the authorities’ effort to prevent the planned event from developing into a larger law-and-order challenge. Preventive detentions were reported at multiple locations, including areas away from the designated protest site. The measures also had potential implications for commuters and residents travelling through central Delhi. Anyone planning to travel through affected areas was advised to check official police and transport updates rather than rely solely on social media posts.

CJP Demands Immediate Release of Dhruv Rathee and Its Leaders

Following the reported detentions, CJP demanded the immediate release of Dhruv Rathee, Abhijeet Dipke and other individuals held ahead of the proposed demonstration. The party condemned the police action and alleged that the authorities were attempting to prevent public criticism concerning electoral roll revisions. It also called for the release of other citizens and activists reportedly detained in connection with the planned gathering. The demand for release became a central part of the party’s response as its planned demonstration was disrupted by police measures. At the same time, the police decision to deny permission for the protest and undertake preventive action formed part of the authorities’ stated approach to security and public order. A full assessment of the incident requires clarity on the grounds for detention, the applicable orders and whether those detained were subsequently released.