India's youth-led protests: Why thousands are taking to the streets over voting rights

On October 2, the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), a youth-led movement, launched nationwide protests demanding the resignation of India's Chief Election Commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar.

More than two weeks later, the protests have led to a legal battle over the detention of two organisers, although the movement has announced a pause in demonstrations during the festive period. Thousands of protesters have reportedly been detained, protest sites have been shut, videos alleging police brutality have gone viral, and CJP co-convenors Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka have been sent to judicial custody.

At the centre of the protests is the controversial Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, which has seen approximately 130 million names removed from electoral rolls across different stages of the exercise. The figure includes deletions from draft rolls and does not establish that every removal was wrongful. While the Election Commission maintains that the exercise is necessary to remove ineligible voters, protesters and opposition parties have questioned its fairness and are demanding Kumar's resignation.

But what is the reason behind the protests? AMC did a deep dive when the protests began. Now, AMC has caught up with people on the ground to understand the situation better.

What sparked the protests?

Meghana Choukkar, an independent journalist, researcher and communications consultant from Kerala, based in Bengaluru, told AMC that the issue at the root of the protests has been on a slow burn for a while now.

"With each phase of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), beginning in July 2025 in the state of Bihar, more voters have had their right to vote questioned and denied. Everyone understands that revising electoral rolls is a necessary exercise to ensure fair and democratic elections. But the rushed manner in which the SIR has been conducted, the arbitrary rules to determine a voter's eligibility, and documentation requirements that ignore the reality of India's majority poor, marginalised, and migrant populations, have raised legitimate concerns that the exercise is designed to exclude," she said in an email interview.

But then why are the protesters demanding the resignation of Gyanesh Kumar in particular?

Meghana explains:

"These issues were in the public discourse when, on 23 September, Indian Express published a bombshell investigation by journalist Ritika Chopra. The reporting showed that major decisions, such as the changes to the form to enroll a new voter, had been made without the knowledge of - and in some cases, despite the disapproval of - two out of three election commissioners. The Election Commission of India is supposed to make decisions unanimously but it appeared that the Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, who is only the first among equals, was making decisions unilaterally. The investigation also showed that through a new software system, the decentralised nature of the ECI's machinery and decision-making was increasingly being centralised."

The ECI's response to the investigation, which included rolling back changes to the enrolment form and asking states to bring back eligible voters who had been deleted, further boosted the credibility of the investigation in the eyes of protesters.

The Commission has maintained that the revision is intended to remove duplicate entries and names of people who have died or moved. It and the BJP have denied allegations that the exercise is designed to benefit the ruling party. Following the large-scale deletions, the ECI directed a special enrolment drive in 20 states and union territories where the revision had been completed, raising a new question: how can previously registered voters get their names back on the rolls?

The protesters are also asking why the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is defending Gyanesh Kumar.

"But the fact that the BJP and the government are going out of their way to defend the CEC and the ECI's decisions, when the ECI is an independent body and not a part of the Government of India, should ring alarm bells about the state of the ECI as an institution. I have seen one argument about how the 13 crore deleted voters were all removed for legitimate reasons because they were dead, shifted, or duplicate. The ECI's announcement on 2 October instructing officials to conduct a special drive to bring back voters who were left out of the voter lists in states where the SIR was completed raises doubts about this claim. If ECI had faith in the accuracy of the SIR in deleting only ineligible voters, why would they ask for a special drive now?" Meghana said.

What have the authorities said?

The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has rejected allegations that the electoral roll revision is politically motivated. Senior party leaders have also defended the authorities' response to the demonstrations, accusing opposition groups of encouraging disorder.

The Election Commission has denied favouring any political party and maintained that the revision is necessary to ensure accurate electoral rolls. It has also announced measures to help eligible voters whose names were omitted, including special enrolment drives and assistance for those facing difficulties with documentation.

Delhi Police, meanwhile, has defended restrictions on demonstrations, telling the Supreme Court that the measures were necessary to maintain public order following earlier confrontations involving protesters.

How the protests gathered momentum

Following the protest call by CJP, opposition parties such as the Indian National Congress, led by Rahul Gandhi, the Samajwadi Party and the Aam Aadmi Party also took up the issue.

"Neha Bora, who has emerged as a firebrand youth leader from the left-wing student group AISA, also called for protests," Meghana adds.

Meghana believes that if CJP had not been formed, and the NEET protests of July led by the movement and AISA had not brought such a large number of students out onto the streets demanding the resignation of the then Education Minister, the protests we are seeing now might not have been possible.

"The July protests, widely known as the 'Gen Z protests', dispelled the environment of fear around criticism of the prime minister and his government. Through memes and comedic reels, the young people of India challenged power and demanded accountability from an unyielding government. The momentum from that mobilisation has carried us to this critical moment," she explains.

What happened on the streets?

But it was not just the protests that were at the centre of attention. Equally significant was the heavy-handed response by authorities.

First, permission for peaceful protests was denied at several locations. When the young protesters still decided to assemble, CJP leaders and other demonstrators were detained, at times forcibly.

According to reports, thousands of protesters were detained in New Delhi and taken away in buses. Some were reportedly transported to stadiums being used as temporary detention sites. Other accounts described protesters being dropped off as far as 50 kilometres from the protest sites, with some forced to find their way back late at night after their phones ran out of charge.

Social media has also been full of accounts from protesters, many shared through memes and reels reminiscent of the Gen Z protests in Nepal.

In one widely shared account, a stand-up comedian joked that he had almost been detained, but the police had to let him go because the bus was already full.

A protester in New Delhi told AMC, on condition of anonymity, that it was heartbreaking to see so many police personnel trying to intimidate protesters while the real issues remained unaddressed.

"One video that stayed with me was Neha educating the police personnel about why we are protesting while she was detained. That video inspired me to come out and join the protest. But this shows the government has the resources and technology to prevent rapes and crimes that have plagued the city and even the country. What they lack is the will to make this place safer for women," she said, referring to facial recognition cameras reportedly installed at protest sites.

The protests spread beyond Delhi

The protests were not confined to the national capital.

Meghana also attended a protest in Bengaluru, the capital of the southern Indian state of Karnataka, on October 8.

"When I attended the protest in Bengaluru on October 8, it was towards the end of the day but there was still a fairly large crowd. There were slogans being raised asking for the resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar. Posters around were talking about the theft of the right to vote. Slogans were also being raised against fascism, RSS, PM Modi and home minister Amit Shah,” she said adding how the protests also gave space to other issues.

“Many women were there to talk about the many recent incidents of sexual assault and moral policing of women in different parts of the country. Some were talking about political prisoners. While the immediate issue is the SIR and how it was threatened the basic democratic right to vote, people coming to protests are also bringing all the issues they have been angry about during the consecutive terms of PM Modi and his party since 2014," she said.

On October 10, the protests in Delhi took another turn.

Authorities imposed restrictions on demonstrations, and CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke and co-convenors Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka were detained at Delhi's Indira Gandhi International Airport after arriving from Mumbai.

Opposition parties also took to the streets, while protesters continued to gather despite restrictions and detentions.

The three CJP leaders were released the following day, but the confrontation between the movement and authorities was far from over.

On October 12, Delhi Police announced that Jantar Mantar, a historic site for demonstrations in the capital, would no longer be a designated protest venue. Protestors argue this spot was important to voice out their concerns to people in power who were in the streets close-by.

A day later, Das and Ranka were detained again after entering the restricted site with other protesters. They were subsequently sent to Delhi's Tihar Jail for five days on October 14. Police accused them of repeatedly violating restrictions on demonstrations at Jantar Mantar, while the organisers have challenged the basis for their detention.

The United Nations weighs in

The unrest also drew the attention of the United Nations Human Rights Office.

On October 10, the UN expressed concern over reports of mass detentions of protesters, civil society members, lawyers and journalists in India ahead of and during demonstrations in Delhi.

"We are concerned by reports of mass detentions in India of demonstrators, protest leaders, members of civil society organisations, lawyers and journalists, before and during today's large-scale demonstrations in Delhi," UN Human Rights spokesperson Thameen Al-Kheetan said.

The spokesperson urged law enforcement agencies to exercise the utmost restraint when dealing with peaceful protesters, in accordance with India's democratic traditions and its human rights obligations.

"All those arbitrarily detained must be immediately and unconditionally released," the statement said.

A day later, India called the UN Human Rights Office's concerns "unwarranted" and accused it of "extreme selectivity" regarding protests in neighbouring regions.

The Indian Express reported that Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said:

"We have seen certain remarks by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) about yesterday's events in New Delhi. India is the world's largest democracy, where the right to peaceful assembly is guaranteed by our Constitution and safeguarded by robust institutions, an independent judiciary and a free media."

"As in every democracy, Indian citizens exercise this right subject to the maintenance of public order and safety. Our law enforcement authorities act strictly in accordance with the law, and our courts remain available to all for the redressal of any grievances," he said, defending the actions of Delhi Police.

"We also note that the OHCHR has an approach of extreme selectivity when it comes to public positions. Violent responses to protests in our neighbourhood have gone uncommented, as indeed have law enforcement actions in its own vicinity. Such double standards only erode the credibility of its standing and contribute to the loss of faith in multilateralism," the MEA spokesperson said, referring to police and law enforcement actions in Pakistan and France.

Protests continue despite restrictions

On October 16, Delhi was once again placed under extensive security restrictions ahead of CJP's planned 'Lehra Do Tiranga' march.

More than 25,000 police and paramilitary personnel were deployed, with authorities closing Central Park in Connaught Place and imposing restrictions on public gatherings.

The movement's founder, Abhijeet Dipke, was detained again before being released on October 17.

Meanwhile, the legal team representing Das and Ranka sought their release from judicial custody. On October 19, a Special Executive Magistrate extended their custody by another two days, citing concerns over public order and their alleged violation of earlier undertakings. Their lawyers disputed the grounds for detention and said that sureties offered for their release had been rejected.

On October 21, CJP co-convenors Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka were released from Delhi's Tihar Jail after seven days in judicial custody. A Special Executive Magistrate rejected a police request to extend their detention, after the two leaders gave written undertakings to maintain peace and not organise further demonstrations at Jantar Mantar while restrictions remain in place.

But their legal troubles were not over. A day after their release, Delhi Police's Crime Branch summoned them again in connection with a separate trespassing complaint linked to their protest at Jantar Mantar. The two sought more time to appear, with police saying fresh notices would be issued.

There has also been a change in the movement's immediate plans. On October 20, Dipke urged supporters to spend time with their families during the festive period and said the CJP did not plan to organise further protests until Diwali. He maintained that the movement remained committed to non-violent protest.

The dispute over the electoral rolls, however, remains unresolved. In a report published on October 20, Reuters described the case of Kamta Prasad, a 53-year-old Delhi tailor who has been trying to restore his registration after being wrongly recorded as dead. He has had to make repeated visits to government offices, losing daily earnings in the process. His experience offers a glimpse of the practical consequences of mistakes in the revision, particularly for people who cannot afford to take time away from work.

What began as a protest over the revision of electoral rolls has now brought wider questions about voting rights, the independence of the Election Commission, police action and the right to peaceful protest into the national spotlight.

And as Meghana's experience in Bengaluru suggests, for many of those taking to the streets, the anger goes well beyond the immediate controversy over voter lists.

Explainer - What is India's Special Intensive Revision, and why is it controversial?

Meghana Choukkar, who also volunteered with a citizens' group helping voters navigate the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), explains why the exercise has raised concerns across India.

According to Meghana, although the exercise is called a revision, it effectively requires registered voters to complete fresh enumeration forms, making it similar to preparing a new electoral roll.

Voters are also asked to trace their names, or those of their parents or grandparents, to electoral rolls from 2002 or 2003, when the Election Commission last conducted an intensive revision.

But finding records from more than two decades ago is not always easy.

Meghana says old voter lists are riddled with mistakes, names are often incorrectly recorded, and many people cannot remember where they voted twenty years ago. For migrant workers and families who have moved frequently, the process can be particularly difficult.

Those unable to trace their earlier records may be asked to provide additional documents to establish their eligibility to vote.

A further controversy has emerged over Form 6, ordinarily used by people applying to be included on the electoral roll for the first time. Voters whose names were deleted during the SIR have been directed to use the same form to seek reinstatement. But the form asks applicants to declare that they are enrolling for the first time, creating difficulties for people who were previously registered. Maharashtra's Chief Electoral Officer has proposed changing the form to accommodate such voters, while the issue has also reached the courts.

Meghana argues that this disproportionately affects poorer and marginalised communities, who may not have access to passports, birth certificates or educational records.

She also raises concerns about voters being flagged for what the Election Commission calls logical discrepancies, including differences in names, family relationships and ages. According to Meghana, women who change their names after marriage are particularly vulnerable to such discrepancies.

Beyond the documentation requirements, Meghana says there is growing anxiety about the exercise becoming a test of citizenship, rather than simply a revision of electoral rolls. “The Supreme Court has authorised the ECI to flag anyone who they believe is not a citizen to the ‘competent authorities’. This has created anxiety among people, especially among Muslims who are under threat from the right-wing Hindu nationalist ideology. Some states have also announced that welfare benefits will be linked to the voter rolls, meaning that those not on the list will not be able to access welfare schemes. There have been reports about Bengali Muslims being sent to detention centers, even as their appeals against their deletion from electoral rolls via the SIR are pending,” she says.

An 86-year-old woman's experience

During her volunteer work, Meghana helped an 86-year-old woman living alone in Bengaluru who had called a citizen-run SIR helpline.

The woman had carefully preserved every voter ID card issued to her, including one from around 2002. She even remembered the school where she had voted.

Yet Meghana could not find her name through the Election Commission's online search system, despite trying several spelling combinations.

Fortunately, the woman had completed secondary school, undergraduate and postgraduate studies, which meant she had educational documents she could use to establish her eligibility.

But Meghana says most Indians do not have that privilege.

For India's poor and marginalised voters, she argues, voting is often the only power they have and an important way of asserting their existence.

For Meghana, the SIR controversy is therefore about much more than updating voter lists. It raises fundamental questions about who gets to participate in India's democracy and whether the country's electoral system is doing enough to protect that right.

 -Asia Media Centre

Banner Image - A photo from protest in Bengaluru, India. Photo: Meghana Choukkar