On October 2, on Gandhi Jayanti, Mumbai witnessed a political protest that went ahead despite an official denial of permission. The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), a youth-led political movement, held its “Jail Bharo Andolan” at Shivaji Park, demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the suspension of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The protest had originally been planned as a demonstration at Shivaji Park between 3 pm and 9 pm, but Mumbai Police had refused permission several days earlier. The police cited restrictions arising from a 2013 Bombay High Court order, a subsequent Maharashtra government order of 2016, the absence of the required Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation permission and concerns over noise, traffic congestion and access to hospitals in the surrounding area. The organisers, however, refused to let the denial end their campaign. CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke announced that if the authorities prevented them from protesting, they would turn the gathering into a “Jail Bharo Andolan”. By Friday afternoon, young protesters began arriving in and around the historic ground. Police barricades and additional security were deployed around Shivaji Park and Dadar railway station, but the crowd continued to grow. Protesters carried the Tricolour, handwritten messages, memes, satirical posters and references to popular films and internet culture. Placards included slogans such as “Gyanesh BRO, JUST RESIGN” and other messages questioning the Chief Election Commissioner. The protest therefore became more than a dispute over a venue. It became a public confrontation between the organisers’ claimed right to assemble and the authorities’ insistence that the gathering could not be permitted at Shivaji Park under existing restrictions.

The police decision had been communicated formally before the protest. In its September 27 communication to CJP national organisation in-charge Ajinkya Shinde, the Shivaji Park police said they were not empowered to grant permission for a gathering at the ground in view of the Bombay High Court judgment in PIL 116/2009 dated January 4, 2013, and the subsequent Maharashtra government order dated January 20, 2016. The restrictions were linked to the long-running question of using Shivaji Park for non-sporting activities. The police also pointed out that the organisers had not submitted the required BMC permission for use of the civic-owned ground. Another concern was the character of the surrounding neighbourhood. Shivaji Park lies in a residential area and has been treated as a silence zone because of the presence of educational institutions and hospitals nearby. Police officials warned that a large gathering could create noise pollution and severe traffic congestion and could interfere with the movement of emergency vehicles and patients. The authorities therefore advised the organisers to select another venue in Mumbai and approach the competent police authority for permission. CJP, however, interpreted the decision differently. Dipke said the denial amounted to an attempt to suppress citizens’ voices and announced that the protest would proceed. The disagreement was not simply about whether a political meeting could be held at one particular ground; it also reflected the larger tension between the right to protest and restrictions imposed to protect public order, residential life and access to essential services. Residents of Shivaji Park had separately expressed opposition to the proposed gathering. Some said repeated political demonstrations affected traffic, businesses and the daily life of people living around the ground. Advocate Siddhi Deolekar, a resident of the area, later complained to the police, stressing that she was not opposed to the right to protest but believed that protests should be held at designated locations rather than outside residential buildings and on roads.

When the protest finally began, the contrast between the police order and the reality on the ground was unmistakable. Thousands of young people and other supporters assembled around Shivaji Park despite the absence of formal permission. Police sources later put the crowd at roughly 4,500 to 5,000, while the organisers claimed that the gathering was much larger, estimating between 35,000 and 40,000 participants. The competing estimates demonstrated why no single figure should be treated as an established official count. The atmosphere combined political anger with the visual language of a younger generation. Protesters waved national flags, shouted slogans and held placards designed to be photographed and shared on social media. Some messages used humour, memes, film references and deliberately informal language to make a serious political argument accessible to a wider audience. Slogans questioning Kumar’s role in the electoral process appeared beside references to Mahatma Gandhi and Dr B R Ambedkar, whose ideas were invoked because the demonstration coincided with Gandhi Jayanti. Music also became part of the gathering, with songs and instruments adding to the atmosphere. Groups associated with student organisations, including the Students’ Federation of India and All India Students Federation, were present. The protest also attracted public figures from the film and cultural world. Actors Naseeruddin Shah and Shabana Azmi, singer-composer Vishal Dadlani, filmmaker-composer Vishal Bhardwaj, filmmaker Hansal Mehta and activist Tushar Gandhi, the great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, were among the personalities associated with the gathering or its support. Prakash Raj also extended support through a recorded message. Their presence gave the demonstration a cultural visibility that went beyond the CJP’s organisational base. The protest was not without serious moments. Police said a 75-year-old man, Gopalakrishna Subbaiya Pillai, fell ill at the venue after complaining of chest pain and later died while undergoing treatment at Sushrusha Hospital. Police said he suffered a heart attack. His death subsequently became part of the wider dispute surrounding the protest, although the circumstances and the political responsibility alleged by some groups remained matters of contention.

At the heart of the demonstration was Gyanesh Kumar and the controversy surrounding the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The CJP’s demand was not limited to Kumar’s resignation. The organisation also called for criminal proceedings against him, a halt to the SIR exercise, restoration of the January 2025 electoral roll, changes to the 2023 law governing the appointment of Election Commissioners and broader reforms to make the Election Commission’s functioning and appointments more transparent. The immediate political controversy intensified after an Indian Express investigation reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections on at least 14 occasions over a period of ten months regarding decisions connected with electoral-roll management, registration procedures, digital systems and the SIR exercise. According to reports, some objections concerned decisions that the two commissioners said had been taken without their knowledge or recommendation. Opposition parties and protest groups treated those reports as evidence of serious questions within the poll panel and demanded Kumar’s resignation. The CJP argued that the integrity of the electoral roll was inseparable from the integrity of democracy itself. The Special Intensive Revision has been described by the Election Commission as an exercise intended to identify duplicate, deceased and otherwise ineligible entries and to ensure that eligible voters remain on the rolls. Critics, however, have raised concerns that legitimate voters could be excluded during the verification process, particularly when citizens are unable to produce older documents or records. The controversy became even more politically charged because voter-list changes can directly affect a citizen’s ability to participate in an election. The Election Commission rejected the suggestion that the reported disagreements represented a breakdown within the institution. It said differing views, observations and suggestions were a normal part of deliberations in a multi-member constitutional body and maintained that decisions relating to SIR had been taken through the Commission’s established legal and institutional process. Kumar has not resigned.

The voices at Shivaji Park were therefore not confined to party leaders. The protest presented itself as a youth mobilisation over voting rights and institutional accountability. CJP leaders repeatedly argued that young Indians should not remain silent when questions were raised about electoral rolls. Dipke had previously described the campaign as a nationwide movement that would travel from Mumbai to other cities and eventually reach Delhi. During the Shivaji Park gathering, he criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Home Minister Amit Shah, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis while calling on supporters to continue the agitation. He also contrasted the response of the Mumbai Police with that of the Delhi Police, praising Mumbai officers for the way they handled the gathering while sharply criticising Delhi’s policing of earlier demonstrations. Dipke described the Mumbai Police in affectionate terms and alleged that officers had treated protesters comparatively well, while using much harsher language for a Delhi Police officer whom he blamed for previous crackdowns. The contrast became one of the striking political moments of the gathering. CJP spokesperson Saurav Das also criticised the Delhi Police response and presented Mumbai as the starting point of a larger national campaign. At the same time, the presence of celebrity supporters gave the protest another dimension. Naseeruddin Shah met Dipke at the venue, while Vishal Dadlani addressed the gathering and expressed support for the movement. Shabana Azmi had earlier urged citizens to ask questions about their right to vote and joined the gathering. The participation of well-known cultural figures brought additional attention to an issue that might otherwise have remained largely within the political and electoral sphere. Yet the celebrity presence could not erase the central dispute: the protest was held at a location where police permission had expressly been denied, and authorities still had to determine whether the organisers had crossed legal boundaries.

That question moved quickly from the streets into the police station. Following the October 2 demonstration, Shivaji Park Police registered a case against CJP organisers and hundreds of unidentified participants. Police said around 400 to 500 people had gathered near Gate No. 6 of the Shivaji Park grounds and alleged unlawful assembly, obstruction of traffic, use of loudspeakers without the required permission and disobedience of a lawful order. The case was registered under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Maharashtra Police Act. Police identified several CJP leaders among those present, including Abhijeet Dipke, Ajinkya Shinde, Pranav Ahire, Ashutosh Ranka, Saurav Das and others. At the time of the initial reporting, police said that no one had been arrested and that further investigation was underway. Separately, Siddhi Deolekar, a Shivaji Park resident and advocate, filed a complaint against Dipke and other CJP leaders, alleging that they proceeded with the protest despite the express denial of permission. Deolekar said she supported the right to protest but questioned why the organisers had chosen a residential neighbourhood when alternative protest sites existed. She thanked the Mumbai Police for assisting residents who had approached them for protection and said that local citizens simply wanted to feel secure. The dispute subsequently acquired another layer when a group identifying itself as Gen Next Mumbai emerged as a counter-protest voice against the CJP demonstration. The development showed that opposition to the protest was not confined to official authorities. Some residents and local businesses complained about disruption, traffic and the effect of repeated gatherings on ordinary life. Public figures such as Javed Akhtar also commented on residents’ concerns about noise, while stressing the importance of applying such objections consistently to political gatherings irrespective of which party organised them. The aftermath therefore produced competing claims of democratic rights: the protesters claimed a right to assemble and question institutions, while residents asserted a right to peace, movement and lawful use of public space.

The events in Mumbai were part of a much larger political mobilisation that unfolded in Delhi on the same Gandhi Jayanti. Congress, Aam Aadmi Party, Left parties, student organisations and youth groups joined demonstrations demanding accountability from the Election Commission and calling for Kumar’s resignation. Protesters attempted to reach Jantar Mantar and other areas in central Delhi, but police prevented large sections of the crowd from assembling at the designated locations. Reports put the number of people detained in Delhi at several hundred, with later police figures reaching around 1,000 as the day’s action continued. AAP leaders including Atishi, Sanjay Singh and Saurabh Bharadwaj, along with student activists from organisations such as AISA, SFI and NSUI, were among those detained or stopped. Police deployed large numbers of personnel and barricades, while several roads and metro stations in central Delhi were affected by the security arrangements. Protesters accused the authorities of suppressing peaceful democratic expression, while police cited security and public-order concerns. Rahul Gandhi expressed support for the youth-led protests and the wider opposition campaign questioning the handling of electoral rolls. The Delhi mobilisation gave the controversy a national political dimension, making it clear that the demand for Kumar’s resignation was no longer limited to the CJP. Opposition parties connected the issue to broader concerns about electoral transparency, institutional independence and the right to vote. The Election Commission, however, continued to reject the allegations surrounding the SIR. It maintained that the revision was legally authorised, intended to ensure accurate electoral rolls and carried out through established procedures. The Commission also rejected the interpretation that differing views among its members amounted to institutional collapse. The competing narratives therefore remained sharply divided: protesters saw the controversy as a question of democratic accountability, while the Commission defended the revision as a legitimate administrative and constitutional exercise.

What happened at Shivaji Park on October 2 ultimately became a story about more than one protest, one political organisation or one Election Commissioner. It brought together questions about the right to dissent, the regulation of public spaces, the responsibilities of protest organisers, the concerns of residents and the institutional importance of accurate electoral rolls. Mumbai Police had said no to the CJP’s original application, relying on court-imposed restrictions, civic permission requirements and concerns about noise, traffic and access to nearby hospitals. The CJP responded by turning the denial itself into part of its campaign and calling for a “Jail Bharo Andolan”. Young protesters then arrived in large numbers, transforming Shivaji Park into a highly visible stage for their demand that Gyanesh Kumar resign and that the SIR process be suspended. The presence of actors, musicians, student activists and ordinary citizens widened the protest’s public reach, while the residents’ complaints and the subsequent police case ensured that the legality and consequences of the gathering remained equally prominent. The controversy also travelled beyond Mumbai, with demonstrations in Delhi and political support from opposition leaders and organisations. At the centre of it all remained a fundamental question about the electoral process: how should India balance the need to maintain accurate voter lists with the responsibility to ensure that eligible citizens are not denied their right to vote? The Election Commission says the SIR is intended to protect the integrity of electoral rolls and has rejected allegations of wrongdoing. The protesters insist that the process requires greater scrutiny and accountability. As of the latest developments covered here, Gyanesh Kumar remains Chief Election Commissioner, the allegations against the Election Commission remain disputed, and the legal proceedings arising from the Shivaji Park gathering are continuing. There was no universally accepted official figure for the total size of the Mumbai crowd, and the initial police position was that no arrests had been made in connection with the protest. What remains undeniable is that on Gandhi Jayanti, Mumbai became the setting for a confrontation between institutional rules and a determined youth movement—and Shivaji Park became the place where that conflict was seen, heard and debated by the country.

References:

1. “Election Commission Row: Mumbai Police Deny CJP Permission for October 2 Protest at Shivaji Park.” The Hindu.
2. “Police Deny CJP Permission to Protest at Shivaji Park on Oct 2, Will Carry Out Jail Bharo Andolan: Dipke.” The Indian Express.
3. “Mumbai Police File FIR Against CJP over Shivaji Park Protest, 400–500 Unidentified Persons Booked.” The New Indian Express.
4. “They Were Not Granted Permission: Shivaji Park Resident Files Complaint over CJP Protest in Mumbai.” Hindustan Times.
5. “Mumbai: Case Filed Against CJP Supporters over Unauthorised Shivaji Park Gathering.” Mid-Day.
6. “Mumbai Police May Take Legal Action Against CJP over Protest Held at Shivaji Park Without Permission.” The Free Press Journal.
7. “‘This Protest Should Not Take Place’: Mumbai’s Dadar Residents Oppose CJP Agitation at Shivaji Park, Say It Will Disturb Peace.” The Times of India.
8. “Mumbai Police Cites High Court Order to Block CJP Shivaji Park Rally; Outfit’s AAP Links and Selective Dissent Exposed by Organiser.” Organiser.
9. “CJP Plans ‘Jail Bharo Andolan’ at Shivaji Park on Oct 2: Why Did Mumbai Police Deny Permission for Protest?” News18.
10. “Gyanesh Kumar Row: CJP’s Mumbai Protest Draws Objections from Shivaji Park Residents.” Outlook.
11. “Message from Shivaji Park: ‘Gyanesh Kumar Must Resign!’” Rediff.
12. “Naseeruddin Shah, Vishal Dadlani Join CJP Protest in Mumbai, Demand Gyanesh Kumar’s Resignation.” ThePrint.
13. “CJP’s Oct 2 Mumbai Protest: What Are Its Demands Besides Gyanesh Kumar’s Resignation?” Mint.
14. “Naseeruddin Shah, Vishal Dadlani Join CJP Protest in Mumbai.” The Indian Express.
15. “Mumbai Police Files FIR Against CJP Leaders, Supporters over Shivaji Park Protest.” Hindustan Times.
16. “CJP Warns of Jantar Mantar 2.0 as Thousands Attend Mumbai Protest Seeking CEC Gyanesh’s Ouster.” The Tribune.
17. “Shivaji Park Protest Draws Heavy Security over CEC Resignation Demand.” Urban Acres.
18. “Dipke Launches ‘Season 2’ at Shivaji Park as Anti-CJP Protest Emerges in Mumbai.” Millennium Post.
19. “Mumbai Police Is Cute, Delhi Police DCP Is a Monster: Abhijeet Dipke at Shivaji Park.” The Times of India.

.    .    .