The Five Demands, In Full — What the CJP Manifesto Actually Says

What the manifesto is — and what it is not

The CJP manifesto is, by the founders' own description, a satirical document posted to the satirical party landing page at cockroachjantaparty.org. It is not a registered party programme: the Election Commission of India lists the Cockroach Janta Party as not registered with the ECI.

That caveat is the first thing any honest reading of the manifesto has to flag. Reading it as a serious policy platform misreads the genre. The manifesto is performance political theatre — a structured provocation designed to force a real political conversation by stating absurd-sounding demands in technical legal language.

We publish the full text below with each demand annotated.

Demand 1 — No post-retirement Rajya Sabha seats for Chief Justices

"If the CJP comes in power, no Chief Justice shall be granted a Rajya Sabha seat as a post-retirement reward."

What it references. Several retired Chief Justices of India have been nominated to the Rajya Sabha (the upper house of India's Parliament) after retirement. The nomination is by the President on the advice of the government. There is no bar on it under current law.

What is symbolic vs. what is policy. The demand is, in current form, unconstitutional under Article 80(1)(a) of the Constitution, which leaves presidential nomination of 12 members to the Rajya Sabha to the discretion of the executive. Any actual reform would require either a constitutional amendment or a publicly stated convention.

Why it landed. The demand hits a long-standing public anxiety about the revolving door between India's judiciary and its political class. The framing — "reward" — was widely quoted in the Guardian's May 21 piece on the movement.

Demand 2 — Arrest the CEC under UAPA if a vote is deleted

"If any legit vote is deleted, whether in a CJP or opposition-ruled state, the CEC shall be arrested under UAPA, as taking away voting rights of citizens is no less than terrorism."

What it references. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, is India's primary anti-terror statute. The Chief Election Commissioner presides over the Election Commission of India, which manages the national electoral roll. The demand treats deletion of an electoral-roll entry as an attack on the franchise comparable to a terrorist act.

What is symbolic. The demand is a non-starter as drafted. The CEC enjoys constitutional protection under Article 324 — removal is by Parliament, not by executive arrest. UAPA does not apply to administrative errors. But the demand's rhetorical force comes from the explicit equation of "vote deletion" with "terrorism" — a direct inversion of how UAPA is normally used against journalists, activists, and dissenters.

Why it landed. It forced a media conversation about deletion of voter entries, a documented problem in several state electoral rolls. Independent fact-checkers have flagged deletions in multiple recent state elections.

Demand 3 — 50% reservation for women in Parliament and Cabinet

"Women shall receive 50% reservation, not 33%, without increasing the strength of Parliament. Additionally, 50% of all Cabinet positions shall be reserved for women."

What is policy. The Women's Reservation Bill, 2023 (Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam) reserves one-third of seats in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies for women, with a coming-into-force date tied to the next census and delimitation. The CJP's demand of 50% is higher than the current statutory floor.

The clever bit — "without increasing the strength of Parliament." The demand does not ask for more seats. It asks existing seats to be re-allocated. That is a constitutionally tractable route, though it would still require a constitutional amendment under Article 332/333.

Why it landed. The framing — "not 33%" — was the most-quoted line of the manifesto in early coverage. The Guardian, AP News, and Al Jazeera all cited it in their opening paragraphs.

Demand 4 — Cancel Ambani and Adani media licences

"All media houses owned by Ambani and Adani shall have their licences cancelled to make way for truly independent media. Bank accounts of godi media anchors shall be investigated."

What it references. Godi media (Hindi for "lapdog media") is a widely-used term in Indian public discourse for media outlets seen as favouring the ruling establishment. Several major Indian media houses are owned by or affiliated with the Reliance (Ambani) and Adani groups.

What is policy. The demand touches on a real, documented concentration of media ownership. India's Ministry of Information and Broadcasting licences news broadcasters; cancellation is rare and requires due process. "Bank accounts of godi media anchors shall be investigated" is not an enforceable policy and reads as rhetorical flourish.

Why it landed. The framing is what made the demand spread on social media. The "Ambani and Adani" construction is identical to the rhetorical shape used by India's opposition parties, which gave the demand instant recognition even from readers who disagreed with the substance.

Demand 5 — 20-year ban on defectors

"Any MLA or MP who defects from one party to another shall be barred from contesting elections — and from holding any public office — for a period of 20 years."

What it references. The Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution (the Anti-Defection Law, 1985) already disqualifies defecting legislators. The current disqualification is from the specific seat, not from contesting future elections, and certainly not from "any public office."

What is policy. A 20-year ban would require either a constitutional amendment to the Tenth Schedule or fresh legislation, and would face serious challenges under Article 14 (equality before the law).

Why it landed. India has had high-profile waves of defections, often just before critical votes. The 20-year number is deliberately extreme — it makes the demand a useful cudgel in the conversation about horse-trading in Indian politics.

The point, restated

The manifesto is a piece of satirical writing that did exactly what satirical writing is meant to do: it forced the press to print the demands verbatim, and forced a public conversation about each one. The CJP newsroom (this site) takes the demands seriously enough to annotate them — but we will not pretend they are a serious electoral programme, because the founders do not pretend that themselves.

Read the original at cockroachjantaparty.org/manifesto.

Editor's note. This article was drafted by the editor-in-chief and fact-checked against the original manifesto page and three independent press accounts. No claim above is unsourced.