Delhi court orders release of CJP leaders held in preventive arrest
Synopsis
Three Cockroach Janata Party leaders detained at Delhi's IGI Airport ahead of a protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar were freed by an Executive Magistrate within hours — but the party says its march to Jantar Mantar will continue until the CEC resigns.
Key Takeaways
An Executive Magistrate court in New Delhi ordered the release of CJP leaders Abhijeet Dipke , Saurav Das , and Ashutosh Ranka on 11 October 2026 .
The three were detained on Saturday at Indira Gandhi International Airport by Delhi Police under preventive arrest provisions.
Their arrest was linked to the CJP's planned protest against CEC Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
CJP legal head Ratna Singh denied that the party filed a habeas corpus petition in the Supreme Court , calling a circulating document unauthorised.
CJP leader Ajinkya Shinde announced the party will resume its march to Jantar Mantar and demands the CEC's resignation .
An Executive Magistrate court in New Delhi on Sunday, 11 October 2026, ordered the release of Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) leaders Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das, and Ashutosh Ranka, who had been placed under preventive arrest by Delhi Police. The order came after the three were produced before the magistrate at Delhi Cantt Police Station, according to CJP's legal affairs head Ratna Singh.
The Arrests and Court Appearance
The three CJP leaders were detained on Saturday at Indira Gandhi International Airport as they arrived in the national capital. Singh had confirmed earlier on Sunday that all three were scheduled to be produced before the Executive Magistrate at 9 am, adding that she would be present at the police station along with other advocates representing the party. The magistrate subsequently ordered their release.
Background: Protest Against Election Commission
The detentions came against the backdrop of the CJP's planned demonstration against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The party had organised a protest march toward Jantar Mantar in Delhi on 10 October 2026, prompting Delhi Police to place several of its leaders under preventive custody. This is a pattern seen in the capital ahead of politically sensitive demonstrations — preventive detentions under CrPC provisions are frequently challenged and overturned by magistrate courts within hours.
CJP Distances Itself From Supreme Court Petition
Separately, Singh firmly denied that the CJP had filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking the release of its detained members, clarifying that a writ petition circulating on social media had not been filed or approved by the party's legal team. 'This petition is not filed by @Cockroachisback. We are not approaching the Supreme Court, and no habeas corpus petition has been approved by the CJP's legal team,' Singh posted on X. She also tagged the document — which had been shared by a legal news platform — to underscore that it was not the party's filing. The petition, invoking Article 32 of the Constitution, sought a habeas corpus direction for the release of all persons detained in connection with the Jantar Mantar protest.
Protesters Vow to Continue March
Notwithstanding the arrests and releases, CJP leader Ajinkya Shinde announced that protesters would march toward Jantar Mantar again on Sunday and would not stop until the resignation of the CEC. The party's stated grievance remains the conduct of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, which it alleges is being carried out in an irregular manner. The Election Commission of India (ECI) has not publicly responded to the specific allegations as of the time of this report.
Point of View
However, is the underlying allegation: that the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls is being conducted irregularly, a charge that goes to the integrity of the voter rolls and deserves independent scrutiny. The Election Commission's silence on the specifics is notable. Meanwhile, the circulation of a fake Supreme Court petition attributed to the CJP raises questions about information warfare around protest movements — a trend that muddies accountability on all sides.
NationPress
11 Oct 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why were CJP leaders Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka arrested?
The three were placed under preventive arrest by Delhi Police on Saturday at Indira Gandhi International Airport as they arrived in New Delhi ahead of a planned CJP protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The demonstration was linked to the party's allegations of irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
What did the Executive Magistrate court decide?
The Executive Magistrate at Delhi Cantt Police Station ordered the release of all three CJP leaders on Sunday, 11 October 2026, after they were produced before the court. CJP legal head Ratna Singh confirmed the order.
Did the CJP file a habeas corpus petition in the Supreme Court?
No. CJP legal head Ratna Singh explicitly denied that the party filed any such petition, stating that no habeas corpus petition had been approved by the CJP's legal team. She identified a petition circulating on social media as unauthorised and not filed by the party.
What is the CJP protesting about?
The Cockroach Janata Party has been protesting against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over what it alleges are irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The party is demanding the CEC's resignation and has announced plans to continue its march to Jantar Mantar in New Delhi.
What is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls?
The Special Intensive Revision is a process conducted by the Election Commission of India to update and verify voter rolls, including adding new eligible voters and removing ineligible entries. The CJP has alleged the current revision is being carried out irregularly, though the Election Commission has not publicly responded to the specific allegations.
