Shocking CJP Protest: Delhi Police FIRs 17 Over Harassment Claims
Delhi witnessed fresh tensions on Monday as the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest over alleged police excesses escalated, leading to the registration of an FIR against a woman journalist and 16 other protesters. The developments center on serious allegations of sexual harassment and manhandling levelled against Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Vivek Bhagat during earlier demonstrations, triggering a cycle of detentions, political reactions, and court interventions.
The CJP Protest gained momentum after a woman journalist accused ACP Vivek Bhagat of sexually harassing and shoving her while she covered a protest on October 3 demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. She stated the incident occurred as she recorded the detention of All India Students’ Association president Neha Bora. The journalist had already been detained once on October 4 and was held again on the morning of October 5 when protesters gathered outside Parliament Street police station demanding registration of a case against the officer.
Police registered the FIR at Parliament Street police station after the group spent a second consecutive night outside the facility. The 17 protesters were detained Monday morning, first taken to Delhi Cantonment police station, and later distributed across different stations in the New Delhi district. Following a brief period of arrest, all 17 were granted conditional bail later that night.
A Patiala House court ordered the release, noting that while the allegations against the protesters were serious, most offences invoked under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were bailable, except Sections 132 and 190. Section 132, dealing with assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from duty, carries a maximum two-year sentence. The court observed that the accused were young and did not appear to be habitual offenders. Bail was granted on a personal bond of ₹15,000 each with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, and requiring appearance on every hearing date.
The court simultaneously directed the DCP, New Delhi, to submit a report on allegations of custodial torture. Two accused, Dharmender and Samarth, claimed they were beaten inside Parliament Street police station after detention. Sheikh Yunus alleged injury from being pushed during the protest. Medical reports recorded abrasions, tenderness, contusions, and swelling on some of the accused. The court ordered preservation of relevant CCTV footage from the police station.
Police had opposed bail, alleging that the protesters formed an unlawful assembly despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, obstructed public space, manhandled personnel including a woman officer, and assaulted officers, resulting in injuries to one. They further claimed the group broke the window and rear-side glass of the bus transporting them, damaging public property. The court recorded these as the investigating officer’s submissions rather than findings of guilt. While affirming the right to peaceful protest, the court stressed that assaulting police on duty cannot be permitted under the garb of protest. Considering the nature of the offences and the profiles of the accused, it found no justification for continued judicial custody.
The two women journalists among the group were released from Mandir Marg police station on Monday evening; the remaining 15 followed later.
Parallel to these events, the Delhi government clarified the promotion of ACP Vivek Bhagat. An order signed by Deputy Secretary (Home) Ramesh Kumar had assigned current duty charge of Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police to 12 DANIPS officers, including Bhagat. Officials stated the proposal originated on August 25, well before the present allegations. A subsequent government order clarified that the assignment was temporary, carried no financial benefit, and did not confer the statutory powers of a regular incumbent. Bhagat himself requested that the current duty charge not be given until a full enquiry into the harassment allegations was completed. The order was modified accordingly, with the charge reassigned among the remaining 11 officers.
On the complaint side, the Crime Branch, which received three complaints of sexual harassment and manhandling by police personnel transferred on October 4, had not registered any FIR by the evening of October 5, nearly 48 hours after the alleged incidents. The primary complainant had spent several hours at Parliament Street police station on Sunday seeking registration of an FIR. Police maintained that the personnel were performing law-and-order duties and that registering cases against them for actions taken in such contexts could deter them from working. A New Delhi police official stated there was no evidence to substantiate the allegation and that footage from multiple cameras at the protest site should clarify the facts.
The episode has drawn sharp political and civil society responses. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi posted on X that the pattern in Delhi was to silence any woman who dares to ask questions. He alleged mistreatment of women protesters and journalists, camera snatching, and referred to earlier accounts by journalists Shaheen and Nafisa of alleged violence inside Saket police station, demanding public release of CCTV footage and action against guilty personnel.
Cockroach Janta Party legal affairs head Ratna Singh alleged that detainees were assaulted and brutally beaten. Advocate Supantha Sinha of the Association for Indian Labour and Administrative Justice, coordinating legal response on the ground, claimed detainees were assaulted during detention and taken to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital for medical examination and medico-legal certificates.
Broader complaints have emerged from women protesters about treatment during demonstrations since October 2. Several women, including students, have alleged sexual harassment and manhandling by police during detention.
CJP co-convenor Saurav Das claimed on X that he and other team members—including Abhijeet Dipke, Ashutosh Ranka, and Ratna Singh—might face arrest ahead of a nationwide protest planned for October 10 against the Special Intensive Revision exercise and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The party has called for protests at Jantar Mantar in Delhi and across the country. Das asserted that the young generation has awakened and would continue fighting for rights and future, with or without its leaders, stating readiness to face jail or worse.
The CJP Protest sequence highlights the friction between the right to peaceful demonstration and the maintenance of public order. While police assert they acted within the law and that unsubstantiated allegations risk demoralising forces, protesters and opposition voices demand transparent investigation into the harassment claims and custodial treatment. The court’s direction for a DCP report and preservation of CCTV footage offers an immediate mechanism for scrutiny.
As the Crime Branch continues its enquiry into the three complaints and the modified duty-charge order for ACP Bhagat takes effect pending full enquiry, the coming days will test whether institutional processes can address both the allegations against police personnel and the charges against the protesters. The nationwide call for October 10 protests underscores that the issues raised during the CJP Protest—accountability, women’s safety during demonstrations, and the boundaries of lawful protest—remain live and contested.
Readers following the CJP Protest developments will watch for the DCP report on custodial allegations, any progress on the Crime Branch enquiry, and whether further detentions materialise before the October 10 actions. The episode underscores the need for clear evidence, timely investigation, and balanced enforcement that protects both the right to protest and the integrity of policing.
