The National Human Rights Commission has taken cognizance under Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, of the alleged use, mobilisation and involvement of minor children in a public gathering/protest held in Mumbai on October 02, 2026, and the subsequent publication and circulation of photographs/videos relating thereto on social media platforms.

The Commission issued notice to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai Police, Maharashtra; the Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), Government of India, New Delhi; the Grievance Officer of X Corp. (formerly Twitter) for India; and the Principal Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mumbai.

It has been reported that the protest took place at Shivaji Park, Mumbai, demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar after it was reported by The Indian Express that Election Commissioners Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr. Vivek Joshi had registered written dissents on record on at least 14 separate occasions over a 10-month period.

The Commission, presided over by Member Priyank Kanoongo, ordered, "The Commission observes that the issue is not confined to the mere presence of children at a public gathering. The allegations, if established, raise a more serious concern regarding the planned mobilisation or instrumental use of minors with knowledge of their age and vulnerability, including their possible use as a shield against lawful police action, besides their exposure through photographs/videos subsequently disseminated on social media."

A complaint was received by Sewa Nyaya Utthan Foundation and another organisation regarding the alleged use, mobilisation and involvement of minor children in a public gathering/protest, and the subsequent publication and circulation of photographs/videos relating thereto on social-media platforms.

The complaints referred to posts published on X (formerly Twitter) allegedly depicting a young child being held above a crowd carrying the National Flag and a placard, while slogans are being raised and several persons are recording the child on mobile phones.

It was alleged that children were involved by persons described in the complaints as associated with the “Cockroach Janata Party” (CJP), requiring examination of the role of the organisers/coordinators, accompanying adults and every person who brought, prompted, encouraged or facilitated the participation of children in the gathering.

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

It was also alleged that discussions took place regarding the involvement of minors on the premise that the police may not detain them, thereby raising concern as to whether the status of children as minors was consciously sought to be used to avoid, restrict or discourage lawful police action. 

The Commission also noted that the material referred to Ajinkya Shinde, Abhijit Dipke, Saurav Das and other persons, whose respective roles, communications and coordination in relation to the alleged planning, mobilisation or facilitation of participation of minors require independent verification and investigation on the basis of the complete digital trail and other evidence.

"The allegations, therefore, raise serious concerns regarding the dignity, safety, privacy, protection and possible exploitation of children and require immediate examination under the child-protection and criminal-law framework, including the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, particularly Sections 75 and 83(2) thereof. The role of persons having actual charge or control over the children, organisers/coordinators, accompanying adults and any adult/adult group alleged to have planned, prompted, facilitated or used children shall accordingly require examination...The Commission is of the view that the allegations disclose a prima facie serious child-rights and human-rights concern warranting immediate intervention under Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993", the Commissioner ordered.

The Commission directed the Commissioner of Police to immediately examine, inter alia, whether the entire video, photographic, social-media and other digital material concerning the incident and register FIR forthwith wherever commission of cognizable offences was disclosed, followed by prompt and effective investigation strictly in accordance with law.

It directed the Police to ascertain the circumstances in which the child/children came to be involved in the gathering, and to identify the organisers/coordinators, accompanying adults, parents/guardians and every person who brought, prompted, encouraged, facilitated, mobilised or otherwise caused their participation in the gathering, sloganeering or related activities.

"Ascertain whether the participation of minors was discussed or planned in advance; whether any discussion took place regarding their involvement on the premise that the police may not detain them; and whether the status of children as minors was sought to be utilised to avoid, restrict or discourage lawful police action...Examine the digital dimension of the incident and identify the persons/accounts which posted, uploaded, coordinated, circulated, promoted or otherwise used the photographs/videos of the children, including accounts connected with the organisers or persons described in the complaints as CJP protesters. Any coordinated dissemination or repeated use/exposure of children through such content shall also be examined.", the Commission directed.

The Commission also directed X Corp to immediately preserve the complete digital evidentiary trail relating to the impugned content and concerned accounts, including account particulars, URLs/post IDs, timestamps, registration/login/IP details and relevant metadata, and to provide complete particulars of the concerned accounts/content, including whether the content has been removed, restricted or disabled; the date and basis of such action; and preserve the underlying evidence notwithstanding its removal from public access.

The MeitY was directed to examine compliance by X Corp. with the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the applicable IT Rules, 2021, particularly its obligations concerning due diligence, child safety, grievance redressal, preservation of information and assistance to law-enforcement agencies.

"Examine how content depicting the alleged use/involvement of children was permitted to be hosted and disseminated; whether applicable child-safety/content-moderation safeguards were duly applied; and whether any failure of statutory due diligence is disclosed...Ensure preservation of the complete digital evidentiary trail relating to the concerned posts/accounts and its availability to the investigating agency upon lawful requisition", the Commission directed.

Furthermore, the Commission asked the Department of Women and Child Development, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mumbai, to ensure rescue, care and protection of children as per JJ Act. 

The Commission directed all the parties to submit Action Taken Reports along with documents within a week.

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition has also been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking directions against all decisions, guidelines, directives, and software modifications initiated, approved, or implemented under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The plea alleged that the decisions were taken without full Commission concurrence or contrary to the majority opinion of the other Election Commissioners.

Tags: