On October 6, 2026 the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi was physically removed by the Delhi Police after an eight-hour sit in at Akashvani Bhawan.Gandhi, along with Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Akhilesh Yadav, Manoj Jha and other opposition MPs, had marched from Parliament towards the Election Commission to demand the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Delhi Police blocked the march near NITI Aayog and detained scores of them, while Gandhi and others then entered Akashvani Bhawan. Visuals and eyewitness accounts from opposition leaders, including MP Pawan Khera, record that police used force and cops locked arms around Gandhi. He was manhandled by the police as he was dragged and forcibly hauled inside a bus.Close Up: LoP Rahul Gandhi Forced into Detention by Several Policemen#VoteChori #Delhi #India https://t.co/fVpbLZ9Uao— The Wire (@thewire_in) October 6, 2026This is not the first time such manhandling by Delhi Police has been witnessed against Gandhi. On July 21, cops forcibly removed the LoP from a dharna outside the prime minister’s residence against brutal police action on student protesters, with footage showing him on the ground as personnel tried to lift him and an aide reporting an injury below his eye. He suffered a bruise near the nose and visible injuries as officers pulled him into a bus. The repetition makes it harder for anyone to dismiss today’s scenes as an isolated episode and strengthens the demand for accountability over how Delhi Police, which directly operates under the Modi government, treats the LoP.Whatever one thinks of Gandhi’s politics, the repeated use of force against him deserves condemnation and legal action.The LOP’s positionIn India’s constitutional democracy, the LoP holds a statutory position equivalent in rank to a cabinet minister, recognised formally under the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act of 1977. The office represents millions of citizens who voted against the ruling party and embodies the fundamental right of political dissent. When security forces under the direct command of the Amit Shah’s Union home ministry physically manhandle an individual holding this high constitutional standing, such treatment cannot be dismissed as routine police action. Respecting the physical dignity and constitutional space of the LoP is essential to maintaining the legitimacy of the Indian republic itself.The constitutional position of the LoP exists to give the largest party outside the ruling alliance a formal role in holding the prime minister to account. That role includes the right to protest, to demand answers from constitutional bodies and to mobilise public opinion against the ruling party. The right to peaceful assembly is guaranteed under Article 19. When the state uses its police power brutally to prevent elected representatives from walking a few hundred metres to the Election Commission, it hollows out that guarantee. Such scenes erode the distinction between a competitive democracy and an autocratic system run by the likes of Vladimir Putin.LoP in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi being detained by police personnel after over eight-hour sit-in inside Akashvani Bhawan premises for not being allowed to march towards the Election Commission’s office. Photo: AICC via PTINo justification for forceDelhi Police said the march by all opposition parties had no permission and that Gandhi’s removal became necessary to maintain public order. But was this physical manner of removal, including manhandling Gandhi, necessary and proportionate? Absence of permission cannot, by itself, justify any degree of force. Nor does the LoP’s supposed resistance relieve police officers of their responsibility to minimise it. In a functioning democracy, a government’s obligation to exercise restraint must survive its opponents’ refusal to cooperate with coercive force.The Supreme Court’s 2012 Ramlila Maidan judgment condemned disproportionate police action and stressed the importance of notice and restraint. Today’s circumstances differ, but the requirement to justify coercion becomes even more relevant when the target of such highhandedness is the LoP and other MPs. It is pertinent to remember that responding to the Ramlila Maidan judgment in 2012, Arun Jaitley, then Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, defended peaceful protest and argued that the state had an affirmative obligation to make that right effective. He also criticised the use of police powers to weaken dissent under the guise of lawful restrictions.India has seen Atal Bihari Vajpayee come onto Delhi’s streets in a bullock cart to make a point, MPs have come on tractors and that has been celebrated as the ‘festival of democracy’. Former chief minister of Andhra Pradesh and cinestar N.T. Rama Rao came with his MLAs to meet the Election Commissioner when his son-in-law Chandrababu Naidu effected a takeover of the party founded by NTR, and he was met with. One could not imagine ‘police action’ against Vajpayee or NTR for trying to approach an institution with a grievance.Modi-Shah’s intimidation tacticsThe ultimate responsibility for this malfeasance rests directly with Modi and Shah. This aggressive physical eviction of a constitutional figure demonstrates a calculated pattern of using physical force to intimidate political opponents. Under their leadership, security forces and other agencies operating under central jurisdiction have increasingly functioned as instruments of partisan enforcement instead of impartial guardians of public order. By employing Delhi Police to use force against opposition leaders during a peaceful political demonstration, the Modi-Shah duo frames political opposition as a security threat to be violently suppressed instead of a constitutional entity to be politically engaged with and personally respected.When harsh police action replaces political dialogue, the message is that those in power will not tolerate a legitimate democratic challenge. The insecurity and fear in Modi and Shah of losing power is now visible in the streets of the national capital. Democratic practice requires restraint by those who hold the monopoly of force, and respect for the constitutional status of the opposition. Allowing the manhandling of the LoP to pass without consequence sets a precedent that no democracy or society can live with, and continue to call itself either ‘mother of’, or the ‘world’s largest’ democracy.