Former Tamil Nadu BJP chief K Annamalai has criticised the Centre over the detention of Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, questioning due process and defending their right to protest. The remarks triggered a sharp response from BJP leaders.
In a post on X, Annamalai said he disagreed with several of CJP’s protest tactics but supported its right to raise questions.
In 2011, then Gujarat Chief Minister Thiru @narendramodi avl said that if his hands were not tied, he would have gone to Delhi and waged war against the central government. Thiru Narendra Modi avl made this statement in response to the police crackdown on the peaceful anti-corruption campaign led at Ramlila Maidan, Delhi. In my opinion, what the Hon PM said then was absolutely right, and there is nothing wrong about it.
Today, you could be jailed indefinitely; your surety bonds could be rejected; and, surprisingly, a Special Executive Magistrate will play circles around you when he/ she is empowered to deal with preventive bond cases.
If you question the violation of due process of law in a democracy, you would be called names, and a barrage of attacks would follow, including being labelled a Foreign Agent.
Ever since I asked the Central Government to speak with the protestors during the NEET exam protests, I have faced constant attacks, but I let them pass because I felt it was important to focus on the issues on the ground in Tamil Nadu. I also, in a way, enjoyed this as it would quickly remove the tag of me being a BJP B Team and sent to TN as a Dhurandhar 😍
Yesterday during a press meeting, I questioned the Delhi Police’s methods of detaining protestors of CJP.
Since yesterday, the attacks have resumed, as expected. For some in the BJP, let me make this categorically clear, in case you have selective amnesia: I left the BJP on June 5, 2026.
As I mentioned yesterday, I might not agree with the tactics of the CJP, and I think many of theirs are misguided. But if you ask me whether they have a right to oppose/argue/protest on an issue that they think is important?
I would categorically say – YES.
So, I would like people to ask the questions again, even if it makes some of them uncomfortable, and I wish the Central Government would answer them instead of resorting to whataboutism.
https://t.co/U1VOaaWCLM was Jantar Mantar denotified as a protest site as per a standing order of the Ministry of Home Affairs after a letter was handed over by CJP seeking permission to conduct a protest?
https://t.co/Gn79sPgy7b long can we have a system that gives powers to an Asst Commissioner of Police as a Special Executive Magistrate who rules over whether to keep someone in preventive detention? The ACP of Delhi Police stands over the trial where Delhi Police is the complainant against the accused CJP. Now you know which way the wind will blow.
3.On October 19th, why did the Special Executive Magistrate, aka ACP of Delhi Police, deliberately arrive late for the bail hearing of those who were arrested from Jantar Mantar on October 13th and recuse himself, saying there is a threat to his life? Is this some kind of a joke?
4.Why were 8 sureties rejected, and why was the person who came for surety subjected to cross-examination by the Special Executive Magistrate?
5. Any action taken on pellet gun usage by the Delhi police or other actions on Delhi police who have violated the standard operating procedures against the protesters during the NEET fiasco stir?
Has no BJP karyakarta in Delhi violated any bond conditions during the previous Congress and AAP governments. I trust the same Delhi police were then also when barricades were jumped and orders disobeyed? How were they dealt with then? Like this?
Definitely – NO.
Now I hear that the detained functionaries of CJP were released by SEM after the case reached the High Court.
I also recently saw a cockroach effigy burned as part of the Dusshera celebrations. Out of curiosity, I tried to find out who is giving this free publicity at a National level. No surprises here. It was led by a BJP MLA, Ashok Goel.
My question again is: is the BJP opposing the CJP or giving it free publicity? Does it want the opposition votes to split by making CJP a bigger player? At this rate, the CJP couldn’t have asked for a better PR team, even if it had paid for one! (1/2)
— K.Annamalai (@annamalai_k) October 21, 2026
He accused the government of branding critics “foreign agents” and urged it to answer questions instead of resorting to whataboutism.
He also questioned the denotification of Jantar Mantar, the rejection of sureties and the handling of preventive custody proceedings.
Annamalai, who left the BJP on June 5, 2026, recalled Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 2011 criticism of a police crackdown on anti-corruption protesters at Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan. Das and Ranka were released on Wednesday after spending seven days in custody.
BJP Tamil Nadu spokesperson Narayanan Thirupathy accused Annamalai of changing his position on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls after leaving the party.
BJP leader Vinod Selvam said the government had a duty to maintain public order while protecting peaceful protest, adding that a 2011 statement could not determine the legality of every police action in 2026.
Mr Annamalai, you have asked the Central Government several questions. Let us also examine the facts your post leaves out.
The Modi government has a responsibility to maintain public order. It cannot suspend that responsibility whenever those facing action happen to oppose BJP
Peaceful protest deserves protection. Alleged violations deserve examination. Neither political affiliation nor social-media popularity provides exemption from the law
You served in the IPS. You know the distinction
1. On invoking Narendra Modi’s statement from 2011
Modi criticised the crackdown at Ramlila Maidan in 2011. That statement is on record. But a quotation from 2011 cannot determine the legality of every police action in 2026
The present case involves allegations of entering a barricaded site and breaching previously furnished peace bonds. Address those allegations instead of presenting the entire episode as punishment merely for asking questions.
Our position is consistent: citizens can oppose the government; authorities can enforce lawful restrictions. Disagreement with the first does not establish abuse of the second.2. On Jantar Mantar: the dates matter
Here is the reported chronology:
• October 9: The Supreme Court discussed identifying suitable alternative protest sites with facilities.
• October 11: The revised Delhi Police standing order was issued.
• October 12: The change was announced; CJP says its representatives approached the police for permission that day.Three alternative venues were designated: Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground and CBD Ground.
You suggest that the authorities changed the arrangement in response to CJP’s application. How do you establish that when the reported order predates the application?
The government’s stated approach included providing alternative venues. That is a material fact when discussing whether the object was to regulate protests or extinguish them.
You can challenge the location decision. But your preferred interpretation of its motive is not an established fact.
3. On Special Executive Magistrates
Your post expresses alarm about a mechanism that existed long before the Modi government.Section 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, already provided for Special Executive Magistrates. This was not an institution invented overnight to handle CJP.
If you seek reform, specify the reform. If you question an appointment, identify the legal defect. If you challenge an order, explain which provision was violated.
But portraying an established legal mechanism as evidence of a uniquely sinister government conspiracy is no substitute for making that case.
Your experience in uniform should bring precision to this discussion
4. On questioning and rejecting sureties
You ask why proposed sureties were questioned, as though scrutiny itself establishes harassmentSection 140 of the BNSS expressly permits rejection of an unfit surety, subject to procedural safeguards, including an inquiry and recorded reasons.
Reporting on the October 19 order identifies concerns including an alleged mismatch with an identity-document photograph and another proposed surety’s inability to provide basic details about the person concerned
Those reasons can be challenged. But the number of sureties offered does not establish that each was legally acceptable or that every rejection was arbitrary.
Publish the orders. Address the reasons. Identify the procedural violation.
“Eight sureties” is a headline. It is not, by itself, a legal argument.
5. On the magistrate’s recusal
You refer to a threat and a recusal, then ask whether this is a joke.
Where is the recorded order? What precisely was stated? What evidence establishes your suggestion that the process was deliberately manipulated?A former police officer should understand the seriousness of a reported threat. If you believe it was used as a pretext, substantiate that accusation.
The public deserves the record, not an invitation to assume the worst— Vinoj P Selvam (@VinojBJP) October 21, 2026
Annamalai maintained that authorities should address protesters’ questions rather than dismissing dissent as anti-national.
