MUMBAI: A set of WhatsApp chats circulating ahead of the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) proposed October 2 agitation has raised serious questions over whether school-age children are being encouraged to participate in the mobilisation.
One participant appears to suggest that minors may avoid detention by police, while another says, “Me toh bach jaunga minor hu” a message that directly raises questions about whether age is being used as a shield against police action.
Other messages discuss going to jail and even mundane issues such as food and prayer facilities in detention.
The development assumes significance because CJP has already announced an October 2 protest in Mumbai over its demand for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. After Mumbai Police denied permission for the proposed demonstration at Shivaji Park, CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke announced a “Jail Bharo Andolan” for October 2.
🚨 VERY SHOCKING! Are MINORS being roped in for the October 2 protest?
Alarming WhatsApp chats linked to the CJP’s Oct 2 agitation raise grave concerns about mobilizing SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN and MADRASA students.
AAP’s Ajinkya Shinde is reportedly active in the same group.
=>… pic.twitter.com/DXxM7yKueB
— Megh Updates 🚨™ (@MeghUpdates) September 29, 2026
Questions over minors
The most serious issue emerging from the circulating messages is the apparent discussion of involving children in the mobilisation.
The legal implications could be significant if an adult or adult group is found to have used children for illegal activities. Section 83(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides for punishment where an adult or adult group uses children for illegal activities.
Earlier controversy over a 14-year-old
The latest controversy comes after an earlier episode involving a 14-year-old girl associated with the CJP protests.
According to the material supplied for this report, former National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) chairperson Priyank Kanoongo publicly raised the possibility of legal action against CJP leaders over the alleged involvement of the minor in an illegal protest.
Kanoongo cited Section 83(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act and argued that CJP leaders could face legal liability if a minor had been used in an unlawful activity. That was an allegation and legal interpretation advanced by Kanoongo, rather than a judicial finding that CJP leaders had committed an offence.
The episode also generated concerns over the minor’s privacy. Child-protection authorities and rights officials have cautioned against publishing the identity, photographs or other identifying details of minors involved in legal or protest-related controversies.
The material provided also refers to an FIR involving the minor and her father over alleged social-media posts that were said to have insulted Hindu deities and hurt religious sentiments. Those allegations remain subject to due legal process and should not be treated as proof of guilt.
Why the October 2 protest matters
CJP’s October 2 mobilisation is directed primarily at the Election Commission and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Dipke has accused Kumar of undermining the electoral process and has demanded his resignation. The group has also threatened a broader nationwide mobilisation.
The protest campaign intensified after the Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally objected, at least 14 times over 10 months, to decisions and orders they said were taken without their knowledge. The reported objections concerned issues including electoral-roll management, voter additions and deletions, changes to Form 6 and access to electoral databases.
The Election Commission has rejected the suggestion that the reported disagreements demonstrate an institutional breakdown. It has said that differing views and observations are part of normal deliberations and maintained that its decisions were taken in accordance with the law.
CJP has nevertheless made Kumar’s resignation the central demand of its October 2 campaign.
Mumbai Police had already denied permission
The proposed Mumbai demonstration has run into a separate legal and administrative hurdle.
Mumbai Police denied permission for the CJP’s proposed October 2 gathering at Shivaji Park, citing existing High Court directions, government guidelines, lack of the required civic clearance and concerns over traffic and noise. Police said the department was not empowered to approve public gatherings at the ground under the applicable restrictions and advised organisers to seek an alternative venue.
The police communication also cited Shivaji Park’s status as a silence zone and the surrounding residential area, as well as possible traffic congestion and disruption to emergency movement.
CJP subsequently announced its Jail Bharo strategy. As of September 29, reports also said the proposed Jail Bharo protest did not have BMC permission for use of Shivaji Park.
The dispute has already produced tensions at the venue. On September 29, a group confronted CJP members at Shivaji Park over the planned October 2 protest and asked them to leave the area.
Ajinkya Shinde’s role comes under the lens
Another name appearing in the controversy is Ajinkya Shinde, who holds the position of National Organisation In-Charge in CJP’s national structure.
Shinde is one of the 12 people in CJP’s national leadership, while recent reports identify him as the person who submitted the September 26 application seeking permission for the October 2 protest.
There have also been reports about Shinde’s previous association with the Aam Aadmi Party. His political background and current role in CJP are matters of public record, but an association with a WhatsApp group would not by itself prove that he authorised or organised any alleged mobilisation of minors.
Shinde and other CJP functionaries were also named in an August FIR in Maharashtra over allegations involving entry into a government school and disruption of official work. Those allegations, too, remain subject to legal proceedings.
Calls for action intensify
The screenshots have already triggered calls on social media for Mumbai Police to interrogate group administrators and investigate the organisers.
Some posts have gone further, demanding that CJP leaders face stringent provisions including the National Security Act (NSA) and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and alleging that minors were being used as a “human shield”.
