Delhi Police has stepped up scrutiny of social media material allegedly containing abusive language against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other political leaders during the Cockroach Janta Party’s protest at Jantar Mantar.
Police officers said several platforms had been asked to remove videos, comments and posts considered objectionable. Much of the flagged content has already been taken down, while a social media monitoring team continues to identify fresh uploads linked to the agitation.
The action follows days of intense online activity surrounding the youth-led protest over examination failures, paper leaks and demands for accountability. CJP supporters used short videos, memes, livestreams and political satire to mobilise participants and amplify criticism of the government.
Investigators are examining whether individual posts crossed the line separating harsh political criticism from threats, incitement, obscenity or material capable of disturbing public order. Police have not publicly disclosed the number of notices sent, identified the platforms involved or confirmed whether criminal cases have been registered against individual users.
The operation is understood to be continuing rather than being limited to content uploaded during the main demonstration. Officers are checking new posts and directing intermediaries to act where material is judged to violate the law or platform rules.
The police response has opened another front in the confrontation between authorities and the digitally organised protest movement. CJP built its support largely through social media, using satire and irreverent language to attract young people frustrated by examination irregularities, unemployment and perceived failures of political accountability.
The group describes itself as a youth political front, although it emerged as a satirical movement rather than a conventional registered party. Its Instagram account had accumulated about 27 million followers by Monday, giving it a reach exceeding that of many established political organisations.
Its mobilisation intensified after disputes over national entrance examinations and allegations of paper leaks. Protesters demanded changes to the examination system, action against those responsible for failures and protection for demonstrators facing police cases.
The government subsequently announced a high-powered task force headed by Infosys co-founder Nandan Nilekani to propose reforms aimed at making examinations more transparent, secure and technology-driven. It also indicated that tougher legislation dealing with paper leaks would be placed before Parliament.
The online campaign, however, frequently moved beyond policy criticism. Some posts used crude insults, aggressive slogans and edited videos directed at Modi and other leaders. Authorities are assessing whether the material merely caused offence or attracted provisions relating to intimidation, public disorder and unlawful online communication.
That distinction could become central to any legal challenge. The Supreme Court has repeatedly protected political expression, including speech that is unpopular, provocative or offensive, while recognising restrictions linked to grounds specified in the Constitution.
Its 2015 ruling in Shreya Singhal versus Union of India struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which criminalised broadly defined offensive online messages. The court found that vague expressions such as annoyance and inconvenience could not provide a constitutionally valid basis for prosecution. Later judgments have reinforced the principle that public disapproval cannot override guarantees of free expression.
Authorities can still seek removal or blocking of online information under other legal provisions. Section 69A of the Information Technology Act permits blocking directions on specified grounds, including national security, public order and preventing incitement to cognisable offences. Such orders require recorded reasons and must follow prescribed procedures and safeguards.
Platforms also respond to law-enforcement requests under their own policies covering threats, harassment, hateful conduct and manipulated material. Removal by a company does not automatically establish that the person who uploaded the content committed a criminal offence.
Civil-liberties advocates have long argued that requests framed broadly around offensive or objectionable speech can suppress legitimate dissent. Police and government agencies maintain that online monitoring is necessary when viral content risks spreading false information, provoking violence or targeting individuals with threats.
The scrutiny comes alongside a government effort to counter false claims connected to the demonstrations. Officials rejected social media assertions that people had died during the Delhi protests, stating that police had recorded no casualties.
CJP’s emergence has demonstrated how quickly political campaigns can expand without traditional party structures. Its supporters have relied on decentralised accounts and user-generated videos, making it difficult for either movement organisers or platforms to control every message published under its name.
