Javed Akhtar’s Shivaji Park Question: Should Noise Rules Apply Equally to CJP Protests and Political Rallies?

On 2 October 2026, writer and lyricist Javed Akhtar questioned the opposition of some residents around Mumbai’s Shivaji Park to a protest by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). Residents had raised complaints about noise, crowds and disruption. Akhtar’s post on X used sarcasm: he said he was certain they would show the same concern whenever a Maharashtra political party organised a public meeting at the park.

His point was about consistency. It was not evidence that these particular residents had failed to object to earlier rallies. The dispute brings together two genuine interests: residents’ right to a safe, peaceful neighbourhood and citizens’ right to protest public institutions.

What residents objected to

According to PTI’s reporting on 2 October, residents living and working near Shivaji Park said large gatherings interfered with daily life. Some said they had to shut establishments because of the crowd. Residents quoted in the report said they were not necessarily against CJP’s cause, but objected to how public gatherings affected the locality. Their opposition had surfaced before the event, including an encounter with CJP members on 29 September.

The CJP gathering went ahead on 2 October despite the police refusing permission. It sought the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar amid the dispute over the Election Commission and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Those political demands and allegations must be distinguished from independently established findings about electoral wrongdoing.

Why the ground has special restrictions

Shivaji Park is both a residential neighbourhood and a historic venue for major political meetings, including Shiv Sena’s Dussehra gatherings. It is not an unrestricted public-event ground. The Bombay High Court directed silence-zone protections in 2010; the area’s daytime and night-time noise limits are reported as 50 and 40 decibels respectively. A 2013 court order and later state rules also restrict non-sporting use of the ground.

For the October protest, Mumbai Police cited the restrictions on the ground’s use, the absence of required municipal permission, noise and traffic congestion, and possible obstruction of access to nearby hospitals. Police indicated organisers could apply for an alternative location. A police decision based on these grounds is not, by itself, proof either of political discrimination or of a proportionate restriction in every respect.

Would the same test apply to major political parties?

Akhtar’s question matters because the ground’s political history makes comparison unavoidable. Restrictions have affected party events too. For example, the Bombay High Court allowed a Shiv Sena Dussehra rally in October 2010 subject to noise limits, while later disputes over permissions continued in court. These examples show that the rules have been contested across different kinds of gatherings; they do not establish how every resident responded to each one.

The fair test is whether authorities apply clear rules to comparable gatherings regardless of organiser, political message or influence. Officials should consider actual noise, crowd size, traffic, hospital access, legal permissions and workable safeguards. They should also examine whether a different site, route, time or smaller gathering could protect neighbours without unnecessarily preventing peaceful protest. The same standards should apply to powerful parties and smaller protest groups.

What the dispute shows

Residents were justified in raising concrete concerns about disturbance and access. It would be unfair to dismiss those concerns simply because the protest addressed a public issue. Equally, denying peaceful public expression solely because the message is politically inconvenient would be an abuse of authority. The material reviewed does not establish that this was the reason for the refusal.

Akhtar raised a legitimate demand for consistency, but his sarcastic prediction remains an opinion, not a demonstrated double standard by the residents concerned. The strongest conclusion is that Shivaji Park’s established protections and restrictions must be enforced fairly, with genuine protection for neighbours and meaningful room for lawful democratic protest.