New Delhi, October 10, 2026: A protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar gathered momentum in the national capital on Saturday after lawyers from the Supreme Court and Delhi courts joined demonstrations over alleged irregularities in the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Nearly 100 lawyers were reportedly detained by Delhi Police while marching towards Jantar Mantar, triggering a strong response from the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), which condemned the alleged use of force and urged Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to intervene.
The lawyers’ march formed part of a wider protest involving student and youth organisations under the banner of the so-called “Cockroach Protest”. Demonstrators have been demanding Kumar’s resignation and raising concerns about the transparency of the electoral-roll revision process. They allege that irregularities in the SIR exercise could undermine voters’ rights, although these claims remain contested and require verification through the relevant evidence and legal processes.
According to reports, police stopped the lawyers before they could reach Jantar Mantar and took them into custody. The detained lawyers were subsequently taken to the Yamuna Sports Complex, where they were being held, according to the information available on Saturday. The police action added a new dimension to the growing confrontation over electoral transparency, freedom of assembly and the handling of protests in the capital.
The SCBA issued a strong statement condemning what it described as the alleged use of force against lawyers demonstrating in the Supreme Court area on October 10. The association appealed to CJI Surya Kant to take immediate cognisance of the incident, engage with the relevant police authorities and ensure the safety and well-being of the detained lawyers. Its intervention brought the conduct of the police and the treatment of members of the legal profession into sharp focus.
Advocate-on-Record Sumita Hazarika, who was among those detained, told Bar and Bench that some women lawyers had allegedly been mistreated by unidentified police constables. She also claimed that the lawyers had been transported in a police vehicle ordinarily used for accused persons. The allegations could not be independently verified from the information available, and a response from Delhi Police would be necessary to establish the circumstances surrounding the detention and the treatment of those taken into custody.
Meanwhile, reports indicated that CJI Surya Kant had asked police officials to release the detained lawyers. The precise circumstances of the reported intervention, the status of the detainees and whether all of them had been released were not independently established in the information available at the time of writing.
The incident comes amid heightened political tensions over the Election Commission’s role in revising electoral rolls. Opposition parties and protest organisers have questioned aspects of the SIR exercise, arguing that electoral-roll changes must be transparent, accountable and subject to effective scrutiny. The Election Commission’s procedures and the legality of individual deletions remain central to assessing these concerns.
The detention of lawyers has also raised broader questions about the balance between maintaining public order and protecting the right to peaceful protest. Authorities can impose lawful restrictions where necessary, but any use of force and detention must comply with established legal safeguards. Allegations of misconduct require an impartial examination rather than conclusions based solely on competing accounts.
With the Supreme Court Bar Association demanding urgent intervention and reports emerging of the Chief Justice’s communication with police officials, attention has shifted to the treatment of the detained lawyers as well as the larger dispute over electoral integrity. The episode is likely to intensify scrutiny of the authorities’ handling of demonstrations as the controversy surrounding the SIR process and the demand for the Chief Election Commissioner’s resignation continues.
This is a web generated news report
