Delhi Court Sends Cockroach Janta Party Spokesmen to Custody for Five Days

A Delhi court on Tuesday remanded two spokespeople of the Cockroach Janta Party, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, to police custody for five days after they were arrested for entering the restricted Jantar Mantar protest site in the capital. The court’s order follows a police complaint that the men had crossed a fenced perimeter at the historic Jantar Mantar complex in the heart of New Delhi, an area that has been closed to the public since the government imposed a lockdown on protest activity in 2022.

The Jantar Mantar area, a sprawling open‑air square surrounded by a high concrete wall, has long been the focal point of political demonstrations in India. Since the Delhi Police announced a “no‑protest” zone in 2022, any attempt to enter the site without official clearance has triggered arrest under the Public Order Act. The Cockroach Janta Party, a left‑wing political group that has been vocal about workers’ rights and anti‑corruption measures, staged a sit‑in on Tuesday night to protest what it calls the government’s crackdown on dissent. According to the party, Das and Ranka were the only people who were allowed to speak at the event, and they claim that the police used excessive force in detaining them.

The Delhi High Court, which heard the case on a petition filed by the party’s legal team, said it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the police’s decision to detain the men, but it granted them a temporary release pending a hearing on whether the arrest complied with procedural safeguards. “The court is not in a position to override the police’s action at this stage, but it has decided to keep the detainees in custody for five days so that the police can present evidence and justify their decision,” a court spokesperson said.

The police, in their statement, reaffirmed that the men had entered a restricted zone without permission, violating the rules that were put in place after a series of violent clashes between protestors and security forces in 2021. They also noted that the court had ordered the men’s detention “to ensure that the evidence is not tampered with and that the legal process is not obstructed.”

The Cockroach Janta Party has repeatedly criticised the government’s use of “law‑enforcement” to stifle dissent. “We are simply exercising our democratic right to protest,” said a party spokesperson. “The police should not be able to silence voices by using the threat of arbitrary detention.” The party’s legal counsel has argued that the men’s detention violates their right to freedom of expression, a right protected under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution.

India’s judiciary is a multi‑tiered system rooted in the country’s Constitution, which establishes a single, unified court structure. The Supreme Court sits at the apex, followed by state High Courts, and then district and session courts. While the judiciary is independent of the executive, the police and other law‑enforcement bodies operate under the executive’s purview and can detain individuals pending judicial review. The High Court’s decision to remand the men for five days reflects the delicate balance between maintaining public order and protecting civil liberties.

The incident has drawn attention from civil‑society groups and opposition parties, who see it as another example of the state’s tightening grip on protest spaces. “The government’s blanket ban on protests at Jantar Mantar is a chilling development for India’s democratic fabric,” said a senior civil‑rights lawyer. “The court’s decision to keep the spokespeople in custody for an extended period is a warning to others who might consider speaking out.”

For the wider region, the case underscores a growing tension in India over how to manage dissent in an increasingly complex socio‑political landscape. As India continues to position itself as a major player in the Indo‑Pacific, its internal handling of protest and civil‑disobedience will be scrutinised by international observers and neighbouring countries that share concerns about democratic governance and human‑rights standards. The outcome of this case may influence how protest movements are organised in other democratic states within the region, where similar restrictions on public demonstrations have been debated.