Responding to the imposition of prohibitory orders, the detention of hundreds of protesters, and the suspension of internet and public transport services in Delhi and Mumbai amid peaceful protests demanding the resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner of India, Aakar Patel, Chair of Board, Amnesty International India, said:
“The right to protest is not dependent on government approval. It is protected by the Indian Constitution and international human rights law.
“Prohibitory orders like Section 163 of India’s criminal procedure law, which grant temporary emergency powers to restrict gatherings in the name of public order, have become a convenient way for authorities to routinely prevent peaceful protests.
“Detaining people simply because they intend to protest is a blatant attack on the rights to liberty and freedom of peaceful assembly. Detentions must have a lawful basis and cannot be arbitrary or discriminatory. Those arbitrarily detained for solely exercising their right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly must be released at once, and authorities must guarantee their right to protest.
The right to protest is not dependent on government approval
Aakar Patel, Chair of Board, Amnesty International India
“Cutting internet connectivity during a protest also raises grave human rights concerns. The internet is now part of how people exercise their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. Protesters use it to organize, communicate, share information, and document events. We urge the authorities to immediately restore online access.”
Background
The protesters led by Cockroach Janta Party, student unions and opposition parties are demanding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation amid controversy over the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. More than 130 million people have been deleted from electoral rolls since 2025.
The protesters allege that the exercise risks wrongful removal of eligible voters and have questioned the transparency and impartiality of the process. The controversy intensified after reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections on 14 occasions over 10 months to decisions concerning voter additions, deletions and electoral systems.
The Election Commission claims that the revision is intended to verify voter eligibility and has denied allegations of political manipulation.
Source: www.amnesty.org
