Why NHRC issued a notice on CJP’s Mumbai protesters | Explained

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

MUMBAI 02/10/2026: Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) protest demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, at Shivaji Park in central Mumbai. Photo: / The Hindu | Photo Credit: Emmanual Yogini

The story so far: As a sea of protesters under the banner of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) gathered at Mumbai’s Shivaji Park on October 2, a child carrying the national flag in one hand was lifted above the crowd and made to sit on a man’s shoulders. Others held placards demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, amid politically charged and abusive slogans. Some protesters recorded the proceedings on their phones, with videos later shared on social media.

One such video, posted on X, prompted India’s top human rights body to take cognisance of allegations that children were used or exposed during the protest.

The National Human Rights Commission’s (NHRC) cognisance follows a complaint by Satish Vaid, Intervention Head, Sewa Nyaya Uthan Foundation, a Delhi-based NGO established in 2020. According to the organisation’s website, the foundation works on social welfare, legal support and community development for marginalised groups.

In his complaint to the Commission, Mr. Vaid cited posts on X and alleged abuse of children for the protest.

The complaint further referred to purported group chat discussions stated to relate to the planning and coordination of the protest, in which the participation of minors was allegedly discussed in advance.

The NHRC notice cited the complainant as alleging that the involvement of minors was discussed on the premise that the police may not detain them.

The NGO named Ajinkya Shinde (organisation in-charge of CJP), Abhijit Dipke (founder of CJP), Saurav Das (co-convenor of CJP) and others, as it sought examination of their alleged roles in prompting, encouraging or facilitating the participation of children in the gathering.

The Commission’s bench, headed by member Priyank Kanoongo, said the matter was not confined to the mere presence of children at a public gathering. It said that, if the allegations are established, they could raise more serious concerns about the planned mobilisation or instrumental use of minors despite their age and vulnerability, including their possible use as a shield against lawful police action. The bench also flagged the exposure of the children through photographs and videos subsequently disseminated on social media.

Acting under Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and Section 13, which gives the Commission certain civil-court powers while inquiring into complaints, the bench directed Mumbai Police to examine videos, photographs, social-media material and the alleged chat records.

The police were further directed to register an FIR wherever a cognisable offence is disclosed, identify organisers, accompanying adults and others who may have facilitated the children’s participation, and preserve electronic evidence. The Commission specifically directed the police to examine the applicability of Sections 75 and 83(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

X Corp was asked to preserve account and content records and explain the moderation and child-safety measures applied.

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) was asked to examine compliance with the Information Technology Act and IT Rules, including due-diligence and preservation obligations.

Maharashtra’s Women and Child Development Department was directed to ensure the care and protection of the children under the JJ Act.

There have been similar interventions involving children at political campaigns and protests in the past as well.

In May 2019, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) chairperson, Mr Kanoongo, issued a notice to Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra over a video showing children allegedly participating in election campaigning and raising slogans. The Commission sought details of the children and how they had been brought to the campaign. Ms Gandhi Vadra said she had stopped the children from raising inappropriate slogans.

During the anti-CAA protests in late 2019 and early 2020, the NCPCR also intervened over the presence of children at demonstrations, including at Shaheen Bagh. It asked authorities to identify children attending the protest and arrange counselling, citing concerns about their exposure to misinformation and possible psychological impact.

In 2022, the NCPCR asked the Election Commission to act against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and the Congress over children’s participation in the Bharat Jodo Yatra. It also asked Karnataka Police to act against DK Shivakumar over his interaction with schoolchildren during the Mekedatu padayatra.

In May 2022, the NCPCR demanded action under Sections 75 and 83 of the JJ Act after a boy raised slogans at a Popular Front of India rally in Kerala. In August 2024, it objected to children raising slogans in a march in Maharashtra and suggested counselling for them.

Delhi based lawyer, John Simte says that no Indian law expressly bars children from attending protests or rallies.

“There is no general age-based exclusion of children from this constitutional guarantee. No provision makes a child’s mere presence at a peaceful protest an offence,” he said.

Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(3). Legal exposure arises only where a child’s presence is alleged to amount to cruelty or exploitation. Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, punishes a person having charge or control of a child who exposes the child to unnecessary mental or physical suffering, with imprisonment of up to three years, a fine of up to ₹1 lakh, or both. Section 83(2) applies to adults who use children for illegal activities and provides for rigorous imprisonment of up to seven years and a fine of up to ₹5 lakh.

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.