Story perspectives

Delhi Police Sends FIRs Against CJP Leaders to Crime Branch

By Drooid · Oct 21, 2026, 10:20 AM UTC · How we work

Summary

CJP Leaders Detained

Delhi Police transferred FIRs against CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka to the Crime Branch.
The FIRs arose from their entry and flag-raising at Jantar Mantar and Connaught Place on October 13.
A Special Executive Magistrate placed them in five-day custody on October 14.
The magistrate extended custody by two days on October 19, citing breach of peace.
Das and Ranka petitioned the Delhi High Court, arguing the extension violates liberty.

Summary

Protesters Demand Resignation

Protesters shouted slogans demanding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation at Jantar Mantar.
Election Commission denied political bias in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
Advocate Abhik Chimni said the surety was rejected because the photograph did not match records.
Legal affairs head Ratna Singh announced the party will challenge the magistrate’s surety rejection.
Crime Branch’s Inter State Cell was assigned the case for further investigation.

History

Historical Context

In April-May 2011, Anna Hazare launched a hunger strike at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar demanding a Jan Lokpal Bill, drawing millions and prompting police to detain more than 1,200 supporters, including Arvind Kejriwal. The Supreme Court’s subsequent order limiting protest leaders’ detention to 30 days set a legal precedent. Today’s detention of CJP activists echoes that 2011 clash between anti-corruption protesters, police and the Election Commission.

1 of 3

CJP Leaders Detained

Delhi Police transferred FIRs against CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka to the Crime Branch.
The FIRs arose from their entry and flag-raising at Jantar Mantar and Connaught Place on October 13.
A Special Executive Magistrate placed them in five-day custody on October 14.
The magistrate extended custody by two days on October 19, citing breach of peace.
Das and Ranka petitioned the Delhi High Court, arguing the extension violates liberty.

1 / 3