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

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.

Why the notice?

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.

What has the NHRC ordered?

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.