Last Updated:
Police personnel reached Dipke’s Delhi residence to inform him about the restrictions and serve a notice under Section 29 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978.
Delhi Police on Friday reached CJP leader Abhijeet Dipke’s Delhi residence, and served notice barring him from holding a protest march.
A notice from the Delhi Police has put Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leader Abhijeet Dipke on notice ahead of his proposed ‘Tiranga Yatra’ in Connaught Place today, with the police warning that proceeding with the march without permission could invite legal action. The notice comes amid restrictions in the New Delhi area under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which empowers authorities to issue orders to prevent potential disturbances and maintain public order.
Police personnel reached Dipke’s Delhi residence to inform him about the restrictions and serve a notice under Section 29 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978. The police have pointed out that the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) has not granted permission for the proposed Tiranga Yatra. They have warned that proceeding to Connaught Place despite the restrictions would amount to a violation of the law.
Click here for Live updates on CJP’s Delhi protest
But what does the notice mean for Dipke? Does it mean that his arrest is inevitable if he goes ahead with the march, or does the law leave room for further action before such a step is taken?
What The Notice Means Under The Law
Section 163 of the BNSS, 2023, which replaced Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, empowers an Executive Magistrate to issue urgent preventive orders when necessary to avert obstruction, danger to public safety or a disturbance of public tranquillity. Such orders can restrict assemblies or particular activities if the legal conditions are met.
In Dipke’s case, the police have specifically warned him against proceeding with the proposed march in an area where restrictions are in force. The absence of NDMC permission adds another hurdle to the planned gathering. The police have made it clear that defying the restrictions could result in legal action.
The notice under Section 29 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, is distinct from the BNSS order. Section 29 empowers police officers of the rank of Inspector or above, subject to the Commissioner of Police’s orders, to issue oral or written directions to the public for specified purposes. It is a provision concerning police directions, rather than a standalone provision that automatically mandates an arrest.
Is Dipke’s Arrest Imminent If He Goes Ahead?
The risk of detention or arrest is real if Dipke proceeds despite the restrictions and disobeys a lawful order.
The police notice is a warning that authorities are formally putting him on notice about the restrictions and the consequences of violating them. If he turns up at Connaught Place and attempts to conduct the march, police could intervene to stop the gathering, disperse participants and take legal action, depending on the circumstances and the applicable orders.
Whether that action results in an arrest, preventive detention or a subsequent court proceeding would depend on the precise conduct, the orders in force and the legal grounds invoked by the police. The notice itself does not establish that an arrest is inevitable, nor does it amount to an arrest warrant.
However, Dipke would be taking a considerable legal risk by proceeding after receiving a specific warning. Any alleged violation could become relevant to subsequent proceedings, particularly if authorities contend that he knowingly defied restrictions imposed to maintain public order.
The developments surrounding the CJP’s earlier protests also provide important context. The Delhi Police have stepped up security ahead of the proposed march, while the NDMC has closed Central Park in Connaught Place, where the party had planned to wave the national flag.
Dipke has maintained a defiant stance ahead of the ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ programme. earlier, on October 14, he had said said he was prepared for the possibility of being detained, claiming that he was under police surveillance and could be taken into custody overnight or on Friday morning. He nevertheless remained committed to the planned programme.
The proposed march is part of the CJP’s continuing agitation against alleged irregularities in the electoral roll revision exercise and its demand for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation. The Election Commission has disputed allegations of politically motivated voter deletions, while the protests have triggered a wider confrontation over the right to dissent and the regulation of demonstrations.
The cases of CJP leaders Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das underline the potential consequences of defying restrictions on protest venues.
Both remain in custody after being sent to five days of judicial custody and lodged in Tihar Jail following their arrest in connection with an incident at Jantar Mantar. Police alleged that a group of CJP members entered the now-denotified protest site by climbing over a locked gate and barricades, unfurled the Tricolour and obstructed police personnel. The charges reportedly include trespass, violation of peace bonds and obstruction of public servants.
About the Author
Pragati is a News Editor at news18.com. Having headed the Business and Viral sections, Pragati now ideates, writes and edits long-form features and articles on national and global affairs. She ensures…Read More
October 16, 2026, 3:01 PM IST
Read More
Source link
[ad_3]
