The national capital saw heavy activity all week. The courts and the city streets were busy. The main focus was the Election Commission of India and the issues around it.
While the Supreme Court listened calmly inside, opposition parties and groups like the Cockroach Janata Party tried to get attention outside. They used loud street protests and fun stunts on the roads. This made central Delhi very noisy and busy.
While the judges focused on legal rules inside, the politicians and protesters focused on gathering crowds on the streets.
During the court hearings, the Supreme Court made it clear that it was fully aware of everything happening around it. The Bench firmly stated, “Nobody can browbeat us.” The judges added, “We are not sitting in an ivory tower. We know what someone is saying outside the court and inside the court.”
This strong warning came after a high-voltage protest march toward the Supreme Court. Tension had been rising earlier as some leaders and protesters tried to force their way into the high-security zone without permission, almost gate-crashing the area. Amidst all these developments, the Supreme Court took up around 15 petitions last week concerning the protests, security measures, and public safety in Delhi. The hearings saw the court reviewing official documents and affidavits from various authorities.
The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) submitted a compliance affidavit, explaining how metro operations and station access were managed during the high-tension protest days to maintain public order. At the same time, affidavits and reports from the Delhi Police and the Ministry of Home Affairs were reviewed, addressing security arrangements, prohibitory orders, and the handling of massive crowds near sensitive zones.
However, these official filings quickly sparked major controversies. Critics and petitioners pointed out gaps and contradictions in the reports. Meanwhile, Home Ministry and police actions faced intense scrutiny over strict travel blocks, internet curbs in central Delhi, and the handling of detained citizens
The bench also looked into urgent matters related to alleged police excesses and the detention of demonstrators, directing authorities to preserve relevant video footage and digital evidence.
Adding to these developments, the Supreme Court took strict note of the protests near its premises. The bench issued notices to prominent INDIA bloc leaders, including Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi and Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, asking them to explain their conduct during the October 12 protest march.
Clarifying the move, the court noted that the notice was meant to examine the manner of the march and reaffirm that nobody could pressure or threaten the judiciary, even as Rahul Gandhi and other Congress/INDIA bloc leaders issued clarifications emphasizing that the court had issued a general procedural notice on conduct regarding the march rather than any finding of contempt.
Meanwhile, separate formal criminal contempt notices were issued by the Supreme Court to Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle. This was done on a separate petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) over sharp social media remarks and statements targeting the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta backed the SCBA plea, stating that such statements were a deliberate attempt to put pressure on the courts, though the bench exempted both respondents from personal appearance for the time being, hoping that better sense would prevail. Adding to the digital row, the official social media handle of the Kerala Congress stoked a major controversy by posting a direct call for the Chief Justice of India to resign. Although the post was swiftly deleted and the state leadership distanced itself amid fierce condemnation from the Supreme Court Bar Association and ruling party leaders, it provided further ammunition to critics alleging a systematic opposition campaign against the judiciary. Beyond these political rows and contempt proceedings, the Supreme Court also tackled pressing human rights and public space issues arising from the demonstrations.
The bench issued notice on a separate petition challenging the official order that de-notified Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site, examining whether sweeping relocations to remote peripheries infringe upon fundamental freedoms of assembly and expression.
Amidst these discussions, intervenors and local stakeholders-including local street vendors and hawkers-raised concerns regarding commercial activities and severe losses of livelihood around Jantar Mantar, telling the court that continuous blockades and protests had crippled their daily earnings during peak festive seasons.
Furthermore, the bench entertained a compelling plea highlighting safety violations and harassment faced by women journalists during the unrest, seeking protective guidelines and interim relief against coercive actions, even as institutional stakeholders and the Solicitor General argued counter-petitions emphasizing the severe disruption caused to public infrastructure and law enforcement.
However, even among those arrayed against government actions, sharp internal friction surfaced within the courtroom ranks.
Pointing to chaotic proceedings where a senior woman lawyer on the same side allegedly snatched the microphone during his submissions and expressing frustration that the bench failed to control the courtroom, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan dramatically chose to withdraw from seven of the protest-related matters, stating that he wanted to avoid infighting on the same team and that the dignity of the institution must ultimately come above all else.
However, dealing a significant jolt to the protesters, the Delhi High Court refused to stay the ongoing police investigation into an FIR registered under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against a woman activist who had accused a senior cop of sexual harassment during the protest. The plea-filed by the woman who had lodged a complaint of misconduct and harassment against Delhi Police Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Vivek Bhagat during the demonstrations-failed to secure relief, as the court declined to halt the probe or grant protection, allowing the investigation to proceed unhindered.
Taking a strict clampdown on local demonstrations, Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka were arrested and remanded to five days of judicial custody on Wednesday, October 14, 2026, after being accused of violating peace bonds and trespassing into the de-notified Jantar Mantar protest site. In contrast, another CJP member, Ajinkya Shinde, was spared incarceration, being bound down to maintain peace and released on a personal bond and surety. The political heat intensified further following a subsequent crackdown surrounding a planned “Tiranga March”. CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke was detained and arrested by Delhi Police ahead of the rally under preventive sections.
Following intense legal challenges mounted by the party’s legal team over the legality of his detention, high-voltage courtroom drama concluded when a Delhi court ordered his conditional release on Saturday, October 17, 2026, allowing him to walk free after signing a fresh peace bond.
Adding to the political friction outside the courtroom, activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan openly stoked a massive controversy during a high-profile press conference. Addressing the media alongside student leaders and activists, Bhushan defended the ongoing agitations by explicitly declaring that “we all want a regime change”, asserting that creating disaffection against the government is a democratic right rather than a crime.
His remarks found immediate backing from opposition leaders, with prominent figures from the Congress party openly supporting his stand. This triggered a fierce political counter-offensive. Ruling party leaders seized upon the statements to allege that the entire campaign was a coordinated push for political anarchy rather than a genuine civic grievance
Looking to escalate the showdown, the Congress party has secured clearance from the Delhi Police and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to stage a massive protest rally at the historic Ramlila Maidan.
With the venue officially booked and reserved from October 25 to November 3, the opposition is gearing up for a renewed push to demand the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and protest the controversial Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, setting the stage for another major confrontation in the capital. Together, these mounting judicial interventions-ranging from the Supreme Court’s strict notices to political leaders and criminal contempt actions, to the Delhi High Court’s refusal to shield the activist from the SC/ST Act probe, and the harsh judicial custody meted out to key CJP figures-have erected severe legal hurdles, threatening to deflate the momentum of the street agitations just as the capital prepares for the upcoming Supreme Court hearings following the Dussehra break on contentious matters like the SIR electoral roll revision.
Sensing this institutional drag, a subtle change of goalposts appeared evident in statements by figures like Prashant Bhushan; rather than doubling down solely on immediate street disruption, the discourse notably shifted toward framing the broader push as a long-term, democratic quest for systemic “regime change”-even as opposition stalwarts like the Congress gear up to test their strength in a prolonged showdown at Ramlila Maidan.
However, this forced relocation of the primary protest hub away from the central heart of Jantar Mantar to Ramlila Maidan-roughly 3 to 4 kilometers away-remains a double-edged sword, with critics debating whether the vast expanse of the historic grounds will amplify mass crowds or dilute the intense, day-to-day political limelight that the epicenter previously commanded.
The author is a senior journalist covering legal affairs; Views presented are personal.