Delhi High Court: Declines to stop CJP protest, notes assurance

The Delhi High Court on 15 October 2026 declined to restrain the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and its founder, Abhijeet Dipke, from holding a protest at Central Park in Connaught Place on 16 October. The bench recorded Delhi Police’s assurance that it would take all possible steps to regulate and control the activity, according to a Press Trust of India report carried by India Today.

Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma were hearing a vendor’s petition raising concerns about disruption to trade and access in central Delhi. When the petitioner’s counsel sought a specific restraint against CJP, the bench declined to issue one, the report said.

The refusal to stop the protest does not, by itself, establish that the organisers have permission to use Central Park. In a separate development, Times Now reported that the New Delhi Municipal Council had denied permission for the proposed gathering. The supplied reports do not establish whether that municipal decision was considered during the High Court hearing or affected by its order.

Vendor sought protection for trade and access

The petitioner, Anil Kumar Gupta, is a licensed street vendor who sells readymade garments at Palika Bazar, according to LiveLaw’s account of the proceedings. His petition raised concerns on behalf of street vendors, daily wage earners and small traders whose livelihoods, he submitted, were repeatedly disrupted by protests, barricades and traffic diversions.

Senior advocate Sacchin Puri sought urgent intervention, arguing that Connaught Place was not a designated protest venue and that the gathering could obstruct movement. He also told the court that further closures during the festive weekend would hurt traders, according to Bar and Bench.

These were submissions supporting the request for restraint, not findings that the proposed protest had already caused the anticipated losses. The supplied material contains no independently verified assessment of business losses or the likely scale of disruption.

Gupta’s case also concerned how police manage the area around a protest. According to LiveLaw, he sought a traffic and pedestrian access plan for Jantar Mantar, Parliament Street and adjoining roads, with barricades and diversions limited to what was necessary.

He further sought revised standard operating procedures, meaning written instructions for managing recurring situations, for newly designated protest venues. His request was that gatherings at those venues should not block surrounding roads.

The petition also asked that vendors should not be evicted, or their goods seized, except in accordance with the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, LiveLaw reported. That law provides a framework for protecting street vendors’ livelihoods while regulating vending. The report does not say that the bench made a separate ruling on those protections.

Police assurance, rather than a restraint on CJP

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for Delhi Police, told the bench that steps had been taken to control CJP’s activities and that the petitioner’s concerns would be addressed, according to India Today’s PTI report.

LiveLaw separately reported that police said they would take appropriate steps concerning Dipke. Neither supplied account sets out a detailed deployment plan, proposed road closures, entry arrangements or conditions for the gathering.

The procedural distinction matters. A court can record an authority’s assurance without granting the specific prohibition sought by a petitioner. Here, the reported outcome was a refusal to restrain CJP, alongside the police assurance to regulate its activity. It should not be described as an unconditional judicial authorisation of the venue.

Earlier in the day, the bench had agreed to consider the matter urgently. Rediff’s account of that stage said the judges referred to protest-related matters expected before the Supreme Court and asked counsel to inform the other parties and return in the afternoon. That report preceded the later accounts of the High Court’s decision.

Arrests prompted the call to assemble

Dipke called on supporters to gather with the national flag following the remand of CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka to five days of judicial custody, according to India Today.

Dipke alleged that the leaders had been jailed for unfurling the national flag. The reported grounds for action were different: LiveLaw said they were arrested for allegedly entering Jantar Mantar without authorisation, violating bond conditions and obstructing police personnel. Those allegations are not findings of guilt.

Judicial custody means detention under a court’s authority, rather than detention in police custody for questioning. A remand order does not amount to a conviction. Peace bonds generally require a person to undertake to keep the peace; the supplied material does not contain the bonds or remand orders needed to assess the alleged breaches.

The reports describe Jantar Mantar as no longer designated for protests, a subject addressed in Digital Pradesh’s earlier coverage of Delhi Police’s withdrawal of Jantar Mantar’s protest-venue status. The present petition concerns the proposed gathering at Connaught Place, not simply access to Jantar Mantar.

Questions about police restrictions have also featured in the site’s separate coverage of a Delhi High Court request for a police response concerning an activist’s confinement. That proceeding should not be treated as determining the legality of this gathering.

Earlier litigation does not establish the current restrictions

The supplied extract of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. The Union of India & Anr., dated 23 July 2018, records an earlier challenge to repeated restrictions on assemblies in central Delhi. The official judgment extract identifies Justice A.K. Sikri as its author.

That petition challenged successive orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the provision then used to impose urgent preventive restrictions. The organisation argued that repeated orders infringed Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, which protects peaceful assembly without arms.

The extract also records residents’ complaints about prolonged protests, noise and occupation of space around Jantar Mantar. It therefore documents competing concerns about assembly and the use of public space. However, the supplied pages do not include the Supreme Court’s final reasoning or operative directions and cannot establish what restrictions apply to the proposed CJP protest.

LiveLaw reports that Gupta also relied on a Supreme Court order dated 11 October. The supplied account does not state its year, and the order itself is unavailable in the research material. Its scope cannot be independently confirmed.

Venue permission and timing remain unverified

The announced assembly time differs between sources. Bar and Bench reported 5 pm, while Times Now reported 6 pm. No organiser’s notice supplied with the reports resolves that difference.

This account is based on the supplied reporting and judgment extract; live research was not possible. The original High Court order, municipal refusal and custody orders were not available for examination. The remaining question is how the reported municipal refusal and the police’s regulatory assurance will apply to the proposed Central Park gathering.