Delhi’s October 10 protest: How far is the state going to stop the crowd?

Delhi is preparing for the 10th of October, but the preparations stretch well beyond Jantar Mantar, where the Cockroach Janta Party, CJP, has called a protest demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Delhi Police has refused permission to demonstrate, metro station closures have been announced, railway services cancelled and a substantial security arrangement is being organized. Meanwhile, reports from several states speak of activists being questioned, detained or asked not to go to the protest.

CJP has alleged that thousands of supporters have been detained nationwide. Reuters reported on the 9th of October that it could not independently verify the nationwide number of people detained or the videos circulated by the party. However, separate reports have documented specific instances of detention and preventive police action. The distinction lies in allegations of a nationwide crackdown not being presented as independently established facts. (Reuters)

The unfolding story is not just about the security arrangements at a protest venue but what happens when authorities seek to regulate the movement of people before it reaches it.

57 metro stations and cancelled trains

One of the most significant measures concerns Delhi's public transport network.

The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation announced that entry and exit gates at 57 metro stations would close from 9 pm that evening until further notice, including on the 10th of October. Interchange facilities would be available at the affected stations, except at New Delhi station.

The announcement came following a request from Delhi Police, which cited concerns with large crowds heading towards sensitive locations. Police had also sought a reduction in metro train frequency, depending on the situation. The restrictions affect access to stations and not a complete shutdown of the entire metro network. (The Times of India)

The railway network has also been impacted.

Indian Railways cancelled services arriving at and departing from New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin railway stations between 4 am and 2 pm on the 10th of October.

Eastern Railway also cancelled two Rajdhani Express services that were set to depart from West Bengal on the 9th of October: the 12301 Howrah–New Delhi Rajdhani Express and the 12313 Sealdah–New Delhi Rajdhani Express.

Railway officials cited anticipated congestion around the Delhi stations. A senior official told The Indian Express that 5000 passengers had missed their trains on the 8th of October. That figure does not represent the total number of passengers affected by the cancellations on the 10th of October. (The Indian Express)

These decisions affect more than prospective protesters. Ordinary commuters and passengers heading for work, education or family commitments may also find themselves disrupted.

37 blocking points and 15 detention centres

Delhi Police has drawn up an extensive security plan for the demonstration.

According to The Indian Express, the plan includes 37 blocking points across the New Delhi district and dedicated detention centres in all 15 police districts.

The report said senior officers had instructed district police to prevent prospective protesters from going onward to Jantar Mantar. Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar convened a meeting of senior officers on the 8th of October to finalize the arrangements.

Police also checked hotels and guest houses and, according to the officers quoted in the report, they instructed accommodation providers to inform local police about people considered suspicious and that appeared to have arrived for the protest.

These details describe the reported police plan, but they do not establish that each planned detention or restriction had already been carried out. (The Indian Express)

The scale of deployment is also significant. The Home Ministry made 221 companies of Central Armed Police Forces, comprising approximately 23000 personnel, available to Delhi Police between the 8th and 12th of October. This is the number of additional central forces made available, not the total number of police personnel in the capital. (The Indian Express)

The administration has also ordered liquor shops across Delhi to close on the 9th and 10th of October, citing public order concerns. (The Indian Express)

The authorities have justified these arrangements on security and public-order reasons, but a combined impact raises a question: how can police prevent violence without imposing disproportionate restrictions on both peaceful demonstrators and other citizens?

Mosque announcements and police outreach

The preparations have extended beyond transport and security deployment.

On the 8th of October, a video circulated on social media that showed a Delhi Police person addressing people through a mosque's microphone in Old Delhi. The officer urged families to advise their children against engaging in unnecessary protests.

ThePrint reported the incident on the 9th of October. Other reporting describes police outreach to students, residents and activists ahead of the demonstration. Police defended their efforts as an attempt to discourage participation in an unlawful assembly and to maintain public order. (The New Indian Express)

The distinction between informing people of legal restrictions and discouraging participation in a protest is important. Authorities can communicate prohibitory orders and explain the possible legal consequences of violating them. However, announcements in public and religious spaces also raise questions about how such warnings are delivered.

The available reporting documents the mosque announcement, but it does not establish that every mosque in Delhi received instructions to issue similar warnings.

Maharashtra: Notices and warnings to prospective protesters

Reports from Maharashtra describe police action against those planning to travel to Delhi.

The Indian Express reported that police in Chandrapur issued a notice under Section 168 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to a CJP supporter on the 5th of October. The notice referenced information that the individual intended to travel to Delhi for the demonstration.

CJP members also alleged that supporters in Mumbai and Nagpur had received police visits and calls, and that some prospective protesters had been asked to sign undertakings promising not to attend.

Maharashtra's Director General of Police's office admitted that notices had been issued in some cases but denied that detentions had taken place in the state. These distinctions are important: a preventive notice, questioning and detention are different actions and should not be described as though they are interchangeable. (Reuters)

Madhya Pradesh: Protesters intercepted on journey

In Madhya Pradesh, police action reportedly extended to the railway stations.

The Indian Express reported on the 9th of October that a senior police officer confirmed that at least 30 people travelling towards Delhi had been detained at Bhopal, Itarsi and Gwalior.

At Itarsi, 21 people who were reportedly travelling on the Goa Express from Pune had been removed from the train. Police said they had received information that a large group of young people travelling to Delhi might disrupt public order. The group was taken to a hotel and asked to return to Pune.

The figures should not be added together: the group of 21 at Itarsi was included in the wider reported total of at least 30 people intercepted at several locations. (The Indian Express)

The incident highlights how preventive action can impact a demonstration before it reaches the capital. It also raises questions about the grounds for detention and the safeguards available to people stopped on their journeys.

West Bengal: The case of Sekh Abdul Hafiz

One of the most serious allegations came from West Bengal.

Alt News reported that CJP West Bengal alleged that five activists, including Sekh Abdul Hafiz, had been detained from a hotel in New Town on the 8th of October at around 8.30 am.

According to the report, the activists had been released at around 9.30 pm.

Hafiz later alleged in a video that police personnel had slapped the activists and forced them to sign a written undertaking stating that they had not been manhandled. The report also stated that the inspector-in-charge of Bidhannagar North police station confirmed that officers of ACP and DCP rank had been involved in the detention and interrogation.

The allegations of physical mistreatment and coercion should not be presented as independently established findings without further evidence, but the reported duration of the detention and the activists' account warrant scrutiny. (Reuters)

The case raises a broader question: what legal grounds are being used when activists are detained while preparing to travel to a demonstration?

Gujarat and Rajasthan: Allegations of pressure at home

In Gujarat, Newslaundry reported accounts from students and activists in Ahmedabad who said they had received police calls, been questioned or been asked to sign undertakings ahead of the protest.

The report also chronicled allegations of detentions and house arrests. These remain attributed accounts and should not be treated as proof that every person contacted was formally detained or legally placed under house arrest. (Reuters)

In Rajasthan, CJP alleged that its national spokesperson and organisation co-in-charge, Deepak Baliyan, had been picked up by police in Alwar on the 8th of October. The party also alleged that he had been assaulted.

The circumstances of the incident and the legal status of the alleged detention could not be independently established from the available reporting. The allegations should, therefore, remain attributed to CJP rather than be presented as confirmed findings. (Reuters)

Together, these accounts indicate that reported preventive action has extended beyond Delhi. However, they do not establish that every state acted under a single central directive.

What does the crackdown tell us?

The scale of Delhi's preparations is clear: metro access restrictions, cancelled railway services, liquor-shop closures, 37 blocking points, detention centres across 15 police districts and thousands of additional central security personnel made available to the police.

Reports from Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Gujarat and Rajasthan describe further incidents of notices, questioning, detentions or allegations of pressure on prospective participants.

The government and police have cited public order, security and traffic concerns. CJP, meanwhile, alleges that the measures are intended to prevent people from reaching the protest. Its nationwide detention claim remains unverified, while separate reports document specific incidents.

The central question is not whether authorities can take preventive security measures. They can. The question is whether those measures are lawful, necessary and proportionate and if they distinguish between people posing a genuine threat and citizens who seek to participate in a peaceful demonstration.

A metro closure affects commuters. A cancelled train disrupts passengers. A police notice may discourage someone from traveling. A detention can prevent a prospective demonstrator from reaching the venue.

None of these measures, on their own, prove an intention to suppress peaceful dissent. Their cumulative effect, however, deserves scrutiny.

Ahead of the 10th of October, the question is no longer only how the authorities will manage the crowd at Jantar Mantar. It is how far preventive policing will extend before that crowd can come together.