Leaders, including co‑convener Sourav Das, used the forum to voice concern over what they described as an intensifying crackdown on dissent. They framed the situation as a threat to fundamental rights and warned that the capital was being turned into a fortified zone. Leaders disclosed that members had been detained illegally, citing the case of Abhijit Dipke at the airport as kidnapping, and criticized the national leadership for undermining fundamental rights.
More than a year later, on 11 October 2026, the same pattern resurfaced. CJP leaders Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das called another press conference in Delhi after the party’s members were taken into custody by Delhi Police. According to the party, the detentions occurred at the airport after the activists had boarded their aircraft following its landing. Abhijit Dipke and others were seized at the airport on that date, and that the police moved them into custody after they had boarded their aircraft following the plane’s landing.
The CJP lost no time in labeling the airport seizure as unlawful. Party spokespeople declared that the detention of Abhijit Dipke amounted to kidnapping, insisting that the activists were taken without any legal warrant or due process. They argued that the act violated basic protections guaranteed under the constitution and that the state had overstepped its authority by treating political dissent as a criminal enterprise.
The CJP also directed its criticism toward the Election Commission of India.
The party specified that the activists were held for a continuous period of 72 hours. During this period, the detainees were denied access to legal counsel, had their personal phones confiscated, and were not informed of the charges against them.
Drawing on the language of emergency powers, Sourav Das told reporters that the current climate in Delhi amounted to a "police raj" and an "undeclared emergency." He argued that the routine presence of armed forces, the widespread use of preventive detention, and the systematic suppression of public gatherings mirrored the conditions historically associated with emergency rule. The party warned that such a state of affairs threatened the democratic fabric of the nation and called on citizens to recognise the creeping authoritarianism.
Escalating the rhetoric, Das directly accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of waging war against his own people. He repeated the phrase, "Modi is waging war against his own people," as a succinct summary of the party’s view that the government’s policies were aimed at subduing the populace rather than serving it. Ashutosh Ranka reinforced this claim by calling the prime minister the "most cowardly Prime Minister," suggesting that the leadership relied on coercion instead of open debate.
The CJP also directed its criticism toward the Election Commission of India. Leaders asserted that the commission had "completely surrendered before Modi," implying that its independence had been compromised. They argued that the institution, whose constitutional duty is to organise free and fair elections, had abandoned its neutrality in favour of the ruling party.
Building on the surrender charge, the party claimed that the Election Commission was actively working to help the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) win elections. They pointed to what they described as biased decisions, unequal enforcement of electoral rules, and a general inclination to favour the BJP’s campaign. Ranka specifically accused the commission of bias toward the BJP, reinforcing the perception that the electoral arbiter had become a partisan actor.
Finally, the party highlighted what it saw as an expanding front of repression: the targeting of journalists. Sourav Das declared, "The Indian government is at war with the country's journalists today," warning that press freedom was under systematic attack. He framed the harassment of reporters as part of the same broader campaign against dissent. Despite the arrests and the alleged emergency‑like conditions, the CJP leaders vowed that their movement would not be deterred, promising to continue challenging what they described as an illegitimate consolidation of power.