Authorities in Delhi and Mumbai have imposed prohibitory orders, detained hundreds of demonstrators, and suspended internet and public transport services amid peaceful protests demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The protests, organized by student unions, opposition parties, and the Cockroach Janta Party, center on fierce opposition to the Election Commission’s ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. More than 130 million people have been removed from voter lists since 2025. Demonstrators argue that the vast scale of deletions threatens to disenfranchise eligible voters and suggests the electoral oversight body is biased.
Constitutional Protections Versus Emergency Powers
Aakar Patel, Chair of Board, Amnesty International India, condemned the official response, emphasizing that the right to assemble does not rely on state permission. “The right to protest is not dependent on government approval,” Patel stated. “It is protected by the Indian Constitution and international human rights law.”
Patel specifically criticized the deployment of Section 163 of India’s criminal procedure law—a statute granting temporary emergency powers to restrict public gatherings. According to Amnesty International India, such provisions have devolved into routine instruments for suppressing dissent rather than maintaining genuine public safety. The organization noted that detaining individuals solely for intending to demonstrate represents a direct violation of personal liberty and freedom of assembly, demanding the immediate release of all individuals arbitrarily held.
Internet Blackouts Impair Civic Participation
The disruption extended far beyond physical streets into the digital sphere, with authorities cutting internet access across key urban zones. Amnesty International India highlighted that communication blackouts severely impair modern civic participation. “The internet is now part of how people exercise their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly,” Patel said, urging an immediate restoration of online access for organizers, participants, and observers documenting the events.
The institutional friction surrounding the electoral roll revision is not confined to the streets. The controversy intensified following reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised internal objections on 14 separate occasions over a 10-month period regarding decisions on voter additions, deletions, and broader electoral systems.
Despite the mounting public outcry and internal dissent, the Election Commission has defended the Special Intensive Revision as a necessary administrative measure to verify voter eligibility, consistently denying any allegations of political manipulation or bias.
