The political landscape of Delhi witnessed high drama today as Arvind Kejriwal, the convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and former Chief Minister, led a significant march towards the Prime Minister's official residence, while the demonstration was organized to protest against the current policies surrounding E-20 petrol. However, the march was intercepted by the Delhi Police at Ferozeshah Road, where barricades were placed to prevent the protesters from entering the high-security zone. Following the police intervention, Arvind Kejriwal, along with other senior leaders of the party, sat on a dharna on the road to register their protest against the government's actions and the fuel policy.
Prominent Leaders Join the Protest
Arvind Kejriwal was joined by a phalanx of top Aam Aadmi Party leaders, including former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament Sanjay Singh. The current Chief Minister of Delhi, Atishi, was also present at the site, lending her support to the march. Kejriwal informed the media that the party is carrying more than 2 lakh petitions from citizens who are dissatisfied with the E-20 petrol mandate. He highlighted that the group includes 100 individuals whose vehicles have suffered mechanical damage specifically due to the use of E-20 petrol. The AAP convenor expressed his hope that the Prime Minister would take note of these grievances and listen to the collective voice of the public.
Core Demands Regarding E-20 Petrol
The Aam Aadmi Party has put forward specific demands to the central government regarding the distribution of E-20 petrol. Arvind Kejriwal stated that the government must either completely withdraw E-20 petrol from the market or slash its price to 85 rupees per liter. Plus, the party is demanding that consumers be given a clear choice at petrol pumps, while kejriwal insisted that vehicle owners should have the liberty to choose between pure petrol and ethanol-mixed petrol, depending on their vehicle's compatibility and their personal preference. He argued that forcing a specific fuel blend on the public without providing alternatives is unjust, especially when it leads to vehicle damage.
Legal Opposition and Security Concerns
The march has drawn criticism and formal opposition from the legal community. Hundreds of lawyers have submitted a representation to the Delhi Police Commissioner, raising serious concerns about the security implications of a public march towards the Prime Minister's residence. The lawyers emphasized that the official residence is one of the most sensitive and high-security locations in the country. They argued that such public mobilizations could pose a grave threat to national security, law and order, and the safety of high-ranking constitutional functionaries.
In their representation, the lawyers also recalled a previous incident from July 21 2026, when opposition MPs staged a protest outside the PM's residence without prior authorization. Following that event, a large group of lawyers from the Supreme Court, various High Courts, and District Courts had approached the Chief Justice of India. They had requested the formulation of clear and binding guidelines to regulate protests in high-security zones to prevent potential security breaches.
BJP Criticizes the March as Political Stunt
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has dismissed the march as an attempt to create anarchy. Harsh Malhotra, the President of Delhi BJP, commented that there appears to be a competition between Arvind Kejriwal and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for the title of Anarchist No. 1. Malhotra suggested that Kejriwal felt left behind in this political rivalry after Rahul Gandhi's recent protest at the PM's residence, prompting him to organize this march on the ethanol issue without obtaining the necessary permissions.
The Delhi BJP President further alleged that Kejriwal's actions follow a familiar pattern of creating chaos and then portraying himself as a victim. Malhotra predicted that when the police stop the unauthorized march, Kejriwal would use the opportunity to play the victim card, claiming that the government is unwilling to engage in dialogue with the opposition.