Police in New Delhi deployed officers in numbers sufficient to detain people attending rallies against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Those held included protesters, members of the press, and legal practitioners.

Detentions took place across a wide range of locations — at Indira Gandhi International Airport, aboard buses and trains, and at sites far removed from the areas where protests had been under way. Three members of Citizens for Justice and Peace — Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das, and Ashutosh Ranka — were taken into custody while still aboard an aircraft, before any of them had disembarked.

Members of groups including AISA and SFI — among them student office-holders — were stopped at their homes and aboard rail services before they could travel to the protest locations. Accounts at the time indicated that Dhruv Rathee, known for his political commentary, was unable to leave his home.

In a formal statement, Delhi Police described the conduct as preventive steps taken within legal bounds to uphold order across the city and shield key installations from disruption.

Under Section 172 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), any individual who fails to comply with — or actively works against — a lawful directive issued by an officer on duty may be taken into custody or physically moved from the area. Anyone held in custody is either to appear before a magistrate or, where the offence is minor, to be released within a day of detention.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde observed that Section 172(2) stands as a genuinely novel statutory provision, noting the absence of any direct predecessor in the former Code of Criminal Procedure and stating that its protective guardrails for brief custodial detention have yet to be meaningfully tested through the courts. Hegde also moved to clarify the legal distinction between a formal arrest and mere detention.

Under Article 22, a formally arrested individual holds several guaranteed protections — among them the entitlement to know the grounds of detention, access to legal counsel of their choosing, and appearance before a magistrate no later than 24 hours after detention begins. Under Section 163 of the BNSS, officers hold the authority to place immediate curbs on activity whenever public order is assessed to be under threat.

Three press-freedom organisations — the Network of Women in Media, the Free Speech Collective, and the Committee to Protect Journalists — compiled accounts placing the number of working journalists caught up in the police response at a minimum of 35. Members of the press described being taken into police custody upon making their professional credentials known to officers.

Recording devices, mobile phones, and broadcast equipment were taken away without the paperwork that regulations require being handed over. A number of journalists reported facing pressure to erase recorded material before their release.

According to accounts of the incident, Delhi Police officers physically handled Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat in a forceful manner as he sought to offer legal counsel to people being held in custody.

Those held in detention gave accounts of transport vehicles equipped with iron grilles, wire mesh across openings, and secured compartments. Video recordings and witness testimonies gathered by AISA member Neha Bora pointed to detainees being confined inside the vehicles for prolonged periods. Documented accounts describe people being forcibly moved or physically restrained by officers during the incident.

At a number of locations, women taking part in the protests were handled by male officers in the absence of any female police personnel, according to available accounts. Accounts from a number of those held in custody describe being driven to the outskirts of the city and released there, at times well after dark and with no means of contacting anyone or arranging transport back.

A collection of eighteen petitions has been brought before the Supreme Court of India, jointly contesting the reported physical mistreatment and holding of legal practitioners, the confinement of upwards of 37 working journalists, and measures that the filing parties characterise as home-based restrictions on movement, blockades on transit routes, and the cutting of internet access. The petitions seek a judicial review of whether police conduct held up against constitutional guarantees — among them Article 19, covering the freedom to assemble peaceably, and Article 21, which safeguards individual life and liberty.