Women protesters challenge Delhi Police’s use of force during 12 October INDIA bloc march

At the INDIA bloc march in central Delhi on 12 October 2026, footage published by Peek TV shows a crowded confrontation involving women protesters, police personnel and other participants. A speaker in the recording accuses officers of dragging women towards detention vehicles, drawing attention to the contrast between public expressions of respect for women during Navratri and the treatment she says protesters received. Another protester says the demonstration was peaceful, that participants regarded women and men in uniform as their own brothers and sisters, and that police should not force them to disperse. These are accounts and allegations from participants, not independent findings that every officer acted unlawfully.

What happened at the march?

The opposition-led march sought the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and challenged the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Reports on 12 October described large crowds moving through central Delhi towards the Supreme Court, police barricades and restrictions on gathering. Authorities closed several central Delhi Metro stations for much of the day. Police cited restrictions under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a provision used to issue temporary public-order directions. The opposition disputed the restrictions and objected to police action against demonstrators.

The clip records a tense, physically crowded moment as police and protesters come into contact. It offers direct evidence of participants’ experiences and allegations at that moment, but it does not establish the complete sequence before or after each interaction, whether particular protesters were formally detained, or whether any specific use of force was necessary. The recording’s speakers also make political accusations against senior leaders and the election chief. Those accusations should not be mistaken for proved personal instructions or corruption.

Police restrictions and the right to protest

Police have a responsibility to prevent violence, protect bystanders and manage movement in crowded streets. Their account was that the procession lacked the required permission and involved damage to barricades. On 13 October, Indian Express reported that Delhi Police had registered two FIRs connected to the march, including allegations of damage to barricades. An FIR records allegations and starts criminal proceedings; it does not establish guilt. Nor does an alleged breach by some people justify indiscriminate force against everyone at the site.

Equally, the constitutional rights to expression and peaceful assembly do not mean every route or gathering can be used without reasonable restrictions. The real test is whether the particular restrictions and any physical force were lawful, necessary and proportionate. Officers should use the least force reasonably required for a legitimate public-safety purpose, and the treatment of women during removal or detention deserves clear scrutiny. Evidence of a crowd being difficult to manage may justify specific controls; it does not by itself justify rough treatment of a non-violent person.

What could settle the disputed conduct?

Longer unedited recordings, the specific police orders in force, arrest or detention records, accounts from protesters and officers, medical evidence if injuries are alleged, and identification of the officers involved would help establish who did what and why. The Supreme Court subsequently agreed to examine questions surrounding access to protest sites and sought preservation of relevant CCTV footage amid allegations of police excesses. That is judicial scrutiny, not a final finding on the conduct shown in this particular reel.

The strongest supported conclusion is that women protesters publicly challenged police handling of the 12 October march amid documented restrictions, detentions and disputes over the procession. The allegation of unnecessary or excessive force is serious and merits an evidence-based examination. Forcibly dragging or hurting a peaceful person without sufficient necessity would be an unjust abuse of police authority; this short recording alone does not establish the responsibility or legal liability of any named officer. Accountability requires assessing each action, rather than treating the whole crowd or the whole police force as a single actor.