Delhi Police challenged over allowing alleged counter-protesters while restricting Jantar Mantar gathering

At a police barricade in New Delhi during the 10 October 2026 protest restrictions, journalist Pranav Pradhi challenged officers about what he described as unequal treatment of two groups: people trying to demonstrate, and others he said were gathering nearby and threatening them. Delhi Police had invoked Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to restrict unauthorised assemblies. Pradhi’s question was whether that rule was being enforced against both sides.

His Instagram reel shows Pradhi speaking into a microphone next to uniformed officers. In its accompanying caption, he says ordinary citizens were stopped from gathering while groups he describes as Hindutva supporters were allowed to assemble and threaten protesters. He says the police had no answer to his challenge. The available image and caption document the accusation and the encounter, but do not independently establish what the nearby groups did, their organisational membership, or the full response of the officers.

What the police restricted on 10 October

The context of the question is not disputed in broad outline. Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) supporters and allied demonstrators planned to gather at Jantar Mantar demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over disputed electoral-roll revisions. Those allegations against the election administration remain contested; the Election Commission denies bias.

Delhi Police refused permission for the 10 October demonstration, citing the timing of the application, earlier disturbances and risks to public order. Orders under BNSS Section 163 restricted assemblies without written permission in parts of central Delhi. Reuters reported that more than 2,000 protesters were detained during the extensive police operation that day. The detention figure and police restrictions are independently documented; they do not, by themselves, establish selective treatment of a particular counter-group.

Were the alleged counter-protesters treated differently?

That is the reel’s central and still unresolved factual question. Pradhi alleges that people he identifies as Hindutva groups could gather while demonstrators were prevented from doing so. He also disputes claims that protesters were shouting anti-India slogans, saying he had not witnessed such slogans while reporting. His direct observations deserve examination but are not a complete account of every protest site or participant.

There is currently insufficient independent evidence identifying the people described in this encounter as members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), proving their alleged threats, establishing whether both gatherings were within the same order’s boundaries, or showing precisely what police did in response. An allegation of Hindutva alignment cannot automatically be converted into an established RSS affiliation. Nor can an officer’s apparent lack of an on-camera answer prove that the police gave no explanation elsewhere or deliberately favoured anyone.

However, the absence of those details does not make the question trivial. A force deployed to stop a planned protest should also be able to explain how it assessed reports of counter-protest intimidation, whether officers received complaints and whether it allowed any other assembly in the same restricted area. Applying the order only to one peaceful gathering, without a relevant public-safety distinction, would be unfair and an abuse of police authority. It has not yet been established that this happened in the particular encounter.

What Section 163 does—and does not—permit

Section 163 allows an empowered magistrate to issue written preventive directions in urgent situations involving danger, disturbance or similar risks. It is not a permanent ban on all political speech, and its existence does not by itself justify every detention or refusal to allow assembly. The actual order, geographic limits, exceptions and reasons matter.

Under Article 19 of the Constitution, citizens have the right to speak and assemble peacefully, subject to lawful and reasonable restrictions. In the 2018 Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan judgment concerning Jantar Mantar, the Supreme Court recognised the need to balance the right to protest with residents’ and others’ rights, rather than treating either interest as absolute. Police can respond to credible safety threats and obstruction, but political affiliation is not a lawful substitute for an assessment of conduct and risk.

Police’s explanation and the outstanding evidence

Delhi Police has defended the wider 10 October restrictions on public-order grounds. According to reporting on an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court, the force cited violence at an earlier July demonstration and serious disruption from protests on 6–8 October. These are the police’s stated reasons, not a court finding that all restrictions or arrests were necessary. They also do not answer Pradhi’s narrower question about the treatment of any counter-protesters at the location shown.

To resolve it, the relevant Section 163 order and map should be compared with the exact time and place of both alleged gatherings. The unedited recording, witnesses, any complaints about threats, police control-room or station records, and a specific police response would help establish whether officers knew of intimidation and what action followed. Evidence of threats should be examined on its own terms, regardless of whether the people involved supported or opposed CJP.

Why the distinction matters

The documented mass restrictions show how forcefully Delhi Police acted to prevent the 10 October demonstration. Pradhi’s encounter asks whether comparable public-order rules were applied to people allegedly threatening demonstrators nearby. The evidence does not yet prove RSS involvement or deliberate police protection of threatening groups. It does justify asking the police for a precise account of who was allowed to assemble, who was prevented, and why. Peaceful protesters must not lose protection against threats because their political demands are unpopular; any substantiated selective enforcement would be both unjust and contrary to impartial policing.