Delhi Police commissioner Anurag Kumar has defended the denial of permission for the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP)’s October 10 march and the preventive detention of protesters as “proportionate to the legitimate objective of maintaining law and order and preventing harm to persons and property”, asserting that the police administration could not have allowed breach of public order by an organisation with a recent history of mob violence, destruction of properties and incidents causing injuries to several people.
In a counter-affidavit filed in response to contempt proceedings over alleged non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions on regulating public transport during the protest, the police commissioner described the July 20 march by CJP over the NEET-UG paper leak as “unauthorised, unlawful and illegal”. The police have argued that those participating in the previous march were part of an unlawful assembly, seeking to justify the action taken against the mobilisation on October 10.
The affidavit forms part of the responses filed by senior officers after the Supreme Court issued contempt notices over the restrictions imposed around the protest. The police have sought discharge of the notice, maintaining that its actions were guided by the need to prevent disruption, violence and damage to persons and property.
Cops cite CJP’s past conduct
The affidavit has relied on communications and public statements attributed to CJP, including calls issued in the days leading up to October 10, to argue that the proposed mobilisation posed a law-and-order challenge. It has also cited material relating to an earlier “Chalo Sansad” march held on July 20 as part of its account of the organisation’s background and past conduct.
The July 20 event is distinct from the October 10 mobilisation that was met with police restrictions. The affidavit refers to photographs, videos and other material that the police rely on to support its concerns about possible violence and confrontations with personnel.
The commissioner sought to justify the restrictions by citing what he describes as CJP’s repeated disregard of police directions and the conditions imposed for public demonstrations. The affidavit says the organisation had given a written undertaking for an earlier protest in June, including assurances that the gathering would remain peaceful, would not exceed 1,000 participants and would not turn into a march towards Parliament without prior permission.
The police alleged that the undertaking was subsequently breached and that the organisation later mobilised people for an unauthorised march towards Parliament on July 20. These allegations concerning the July event led to the police’s decision to deny permission for the October 10 mobilisation, according to the affidavit.
The commissioner has also relied on a series of mobilisations on October 6, 7 and 8, alleging they created serious public-order problems in central Delhi. According to the affidavit, the protests included a march to the office of the Election Commission of India on October 6, a march from Janpath to Jantar Mantar the following day, and another from the Outer Circle of Connaught Place towards Rajghat on October 8. The police claimed these gatherings choked central Delhi for hours, leaving students and other commuters stranded in traffic and causing some to miss trains and flights.
Describing the conduct of some participants at these earlier October demonstrations, the commissioner alleged the gatherings had turned aggressive, with some people physically harassing police personnel and misbehaving with women officers. The affidavit said more than a dozen police personnel were injured. The commissioner maintained that these events, alongside the July 20 episode, informed the police assessment of the risks posed by the proposed October 10 march.
‘No police administration can permit any breach of public order’
The commissioner invoked the distinctive security requirements of the national capital, pointing to the presence of Parliament, the Supreme Court, Rashtrapati Bhawan, diplomatic missions and other sensitive institutions. He argued that policing in Delhi required a careful balance between the right to protest and the need to protect public and private property, prevent injury and preserve the everyday movement of residents.
“No police administration can permit any breach of public order in the national capital, particularly when a call is given by an organisation with a recent history of mob violence, destruction of public and private property, and incidents resulting in injuries to several individuals and the subsequent events of 6th, 7th and 8th October, 2026,” stated the affidavit.
The affidavit contended that the July 20 gathering involved attacks on police personnel and said more than 240 police officers and personnel were injured. These are the police’s claims about the earlier event, which it has relied on to explain its assessment of the October 10 threat.
On the detentions on October 10, the commissioner said the measures were based on intelligence inputs and an assessment of the prevailing, changing situation. The affidavit said the police invoked Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act, a provision concerning the removal of persons who resist, refuse or disregard lawful directions, at locations where prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita were in force.
The commissioner also disputed any suggestion that those removed were subjected to prolonged detention. According to the affidavit, the detainees were released within a few hours, before the maximum 24-hour period contemplated under the relevant provisions; they were not lodged in police lock-ups or jails, were provided food and allowed to leave once the circumstances necessitating their removal had ceased. The affidavit further said political leaders who were removed were accommodated in police station offices and provided food, tea, coffee and other refreshments.
“A major public order situation was averted by timely, proportionate and lawful measures taken by the Delhi Police,” maintained the affidavit.
Home secretary apologises, defends internet suspension
Union home secretary Govind Mohan has tendered an “unconditional and unqualified apology” before the court, while denying that there was any willful or deliberate non-compliance with its directions. His affidavit defended the suspension of cellular internet services as a proportionate measure to prevent the spread of rumours and maintain public order during the October 10 protest.
The suspension was imposed from 10pm on October 9 until 10pm on October 10 within a four-kilometre radius of Raisina Hill, the affidavit said, adding that wi-fi and broadband services were not suspended. Mohan has sought discharge of the contempt notice and modification of the Supreme Court’s October 11 order to permit internet suspensions in situations of necessity, subject to the law and applicable safeguards.
The affidavit also relied on the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan Vs Union of India, which dealt with the regulation of protests and the competing claims of the right to demonstrate and the need to maintain public order.
Railways cite cancellations to maintain public order
Railway Board chairman Satish Kumar has told the court that the Railways reviewed its arrangements in light of the evolving situation and took steps to maintain public order on October 10. In its affidavit, it listed cancellations affecting services arriving in and passing through Delhi around the time of the proposed march.
According to the affidavit, 41 mail and express trains scheduled to arrive at New Delhi, Hazrat Nizamuddin and Tilak Bridge between 4am and 2pm on October 10 were cancelled. It separately referred to the cancellation of around 200 passenger trains terminating in or passing through Delhi between 4pm on October 9 and midnight on October 10. These figures relate to different categories and time windows identified in the affidavit.
The Railways has maintained that the decisions were taken in response to the prevailing law-and-order situation. Its account forms part of the government’s broader defence of the measures adopted around the protest.
The Supreme Court had on October 11 issued contempt notices to the Union home secretary, the Delhi Police commissioner and the DMRC chairperson, holding that a prima facie case was made out over alleged non-compliance with its October 9 directions. Those directions required Metro and other rail services not to be prohibited outright, but to operate in a regulated manner, with arrangements publicised to avoid inconvenience to commuters.