The Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) on Sunday accused authorities of imposing an “open Emergency” in the national capital, alleging that extensive security deployments, metro station closures and disruptions to train services were aimed at suppressing its youth-led movement demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Party activists said the measures had disrupted public life and inconvenienced residents beyond those participating in the demonstrations. Addressing a joint press conference in New Delhi, CJP activists Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka criticised the security arrangements introduced amid the protests. They alleged that restrictions on movement and transport were being used to curb the agitation and turn public opinion against the demonstrators. The party maintained that the impact of the measures extended beyond protesters, affecting ordinary commuters and residents who had no direct connection with the movement.

Drawing a parallel with the Emergency imposed in India in 1975, Das claimed that Delhi had effectively been turned into a cantonment. He alleged that between 30,000 and 40,000 security personnel had been deployed across the city as authorities prepared to manage the demonstrations. The figure was cited by Das during the press conference and was not independently verified in the information available. “The situation across the country right now mirrors an open Emergency. Such repressive conditions have not been witnessed since the dictatorial regime of 1975,” Das said, criticising what he described as the excessive use of security measures against the protesters. Das further alleged that the deployment included border troops and personnel brought in by air from Kashmir, Bengal and regions affected by Naxalite activity. He argued that the scale of the arrangements demonstrated the authorities' determination to contain the protest. However, the details provided by the CJP activists did not include an independently confirmed breakdown of the personnel deployed, their units or the locations where they had been stationed.

The party's allegations came amid demonstrations demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The protest movement has raised concerns related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, a process that has become a point of political contention. Opposition figures and activists have used the term “vote chori” to describe their allegations of electoral irregularities, while the specific claims require assessment on the basis of evidence and responses from the relevant authorities. The CJP also criticised the closure of metro stations and reported disruptions to train services, arguing that the restrictions affected the movement of people across the capital. Such measures can have consequences for commuters, workers and businesses, particularly when transport access is limited in busy parts of a city. The activists alleged that these disruptions placed an additional burden on residents who were not involved in the protest.

Also Read: SC Seeks Free Movement In Delhi, Orders Removal Of Unnecessary Barricades Amid CJP Protest

The security arrangements and transport restrictions have also become part of a wider debate over how authorities manage demonstrations while protecting public order and access to essential services. The Supreme Court separately directed authorities to remove barricades unless they were absolutely necessary and withdraw restrictions around its premises that could obstruct access to courts. The bench said free movement should be restored while allowing reasonable regulation to maintain public order. The CJP's press conference added to criticism of the authorities' response to the demonstrations, with the activists arguing that the restrictions risked penalising the wider public for a political agitation. Their comparison with the 1975 Emergency was intended to underline what they described as the seriousness of the current situation. The Emergency, declared in June 1975 and lasting until March 1977, involved extensive restrictions on civil liberties and political activity.

The allegations made by the CJP remain the party's account of the events. The available information does not include a detailed response from Delhi Police or the authorities regarding the stated deployment figures, the origins of the personnel or the reasons for individual transport restrictions. Further clarification would be needed to establish the full extent of the security arrangements and their impact on public movement. The dispute highlights the continuing tension between the right to protest and the state's responsibility to maintain public order. While authorities may impose proportionate restrictions when necessary, the CJP has called the measures excessive and accused officials of using disruption to discourage public participation. The developments are likely to remain central to the debate surrounding the protests and the demands directed at the Election Commission.

Also Read: Police Arrest Four Men Allegedly Linked To Hindu Raksha Dal Over Attack On CJP Protesters