Quick answer: Hindustan Times has reported that Haryana lawyer Sudhir Jakhar filed an application with the Election Commission of India to register Cockroach Janta Party separately from its US-based founder Abhijeet Dipke. DNA India framed the same controversy with the question: “Cockroach Janta Party hijacked? Haryana lawyer vs US founder.” For CJP supporters, this is not just paperwork. It is a direct question of who has the right to represent a movement built by young people online.
First they called us cockroaches. Then they tried to block us. Then they tried to trademark us. Now someone wants to register the party without the founder.
This is why the word hijack matters.
What Hindustan Times reported
According to Hindustan Times, a lawyer from Panipat, Haryana, named Sudhir Jakhar filed an application with the Election Commission of India to register the online satirical collective Cockroach Janta Party in his own name, separately from founder Abhijeet Dipke.
The report says Jakhar described himself as the party’s national convener and submitted the application to the ECI secretary under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, the legal route used to register political parties in India.
Hindustan Times also reported that Jakhar’s application carried the CJP cockroach logo and warned that a Jakhar-registered CJP could potentially claim the movement’s social media handles.
DNA India called it the hijack question
DNA India also covered the same controversy with the framing: “Cockroach Janta Party hijacked? Haryana lawyer vs US founder.”
That framing captures what many CJP supporters are asking: is this a genuine attempt to protect the movement, or an attempt to take control of a name, logo, and public identity that someone else created?
The DNA headline matters because it puts the emotional and political question into one word: hijacked.
Who is Abhijeet Dipke in this dispute?
Abhijeet Dipke is publicly known as the founder of Cockroach Janta Party. The movement began after the “cockroach” remark about unemployed youth triggered public anger. Dipke created the original CJP identity, helped launch the online movement, and became the face of CJP during the digital crackdown.
CJP was not born from an Election Commission file. It was born from a public insult, a viral response, a logo, a slogan, a website, a join form, and lakhs of young people who understood the anger behind the joke.
That is why any attempt to register CJP without Dipke raises a basic question: who authorised this?
Jakhar’s explanation
Hindustan Times reports that Jakhar said he and others had approached Dipke and urged him to return to India to register the party. Jakhar claimed Dipke declined to come to India and convert the movement into a ground-level political party.
Jakhar’s explanation was that they moved ahead because they feared someone else might register the name first and misuse it.
On paper, that may sound protective. But the question remains: if the goal was to protect CJP, why file separately from the founder and existing public movement?
The logo issue is serious
The HT report says Jakhar’s application used the CJP cockroach logo.
That is not a small detail. The CJP cockroach logo is not just a decorative insect. It is the movement’s identity. It appears on badges, blog cards, membership graphics, posters, and digital creatives. It represents the insult that young people reclaimed.
Using the logo in a separate registration attempt creates confusion over who speaks for CJP.
The logo is not just artwork. It is the movement’s face.
The objectives are not the same
Hindustan Times also reported that the objectives submitted by Jakhar included points such as fundamental duties, democratic participation, social audit of governance, environmental protection, animal welfare, legal awareness, whistleblower protection, transparency, communal harmony, and peaceful democratic reforms.
These are safe civic phrases. But HT noted that they differ from CJP’s original five demands.
The original CJP demands were sharper and more confrontational. They included no Rajya Sabha seats for retired Chief Justices, prosecution under anti-terror law for vote deletions, 50% women’s reservation in Parliament and Cabinet, cancellation of media licences of billionaire industrialists, and a 20-year ban on political defectors.
That difference matters.
If someone takes the name but changes the demands, then they are not only registering a party. They are changing the meaning of the movement.
Can CJP become a registered political party?
Yes, in theory. Under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, an association or body of Indian citizens can apply to the Election Commission of India for registration as a political party.
If approved, such a party can become a Registered Unrecognised Political Party before contesting elections and building formal recognition.
But the legal question is not the only question.
The larger question is: who has the moral and public authority to register CJP?
The Election Commission angle
Hindustan Times notes that the ECI has the authority to determine a registered party’s authorised office-bearers under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. HT also compared the significance of that power to situations where parties split, such as Shiv Sena and the Nationalist Congress Party.
This means that if a separate registration attempt succeeds, the consequences may not remain limited to paperwork. It could create a contest over authorised office-bearers, party identity, symbols, and even digital handles.
That is why CJP supporters should not treat this as a harmless legal filing.
The cockroach symbol may not be allowed
There is another irony. Hindustan Times reports that the cockroach symbol itself is unlikely to be approved as an election symbol because ECI rules restrict animal symbols, with the sole exceptions being the lion and the elephant. HT notes that the free symbols list includes objects such as a noodle bowl, pressure cooker, and baby walker, but not an insect.
So the movement built around a cockroach may face a system that wants to register the party, but not the cockroach.
That is the perfect summary of what formal politics often does to movements: it takes the name, softens the demands, and removes the symbol.
Why CJP supporters are worried
The concern is simple. CJP grew because people trusted a specific story:
- A public insult was made against unemployed youth.
- Abhijeet Dipke responded by creating Cockroach Janta Party.
- The movement grew rapidly online.
- Supporters joined through digital forms and public posts.
- The logo, slogan, badge, and manifesto became part of the public identity.
If someone else registers the same name with different objectives and a different leadership claim, the movement can be split, diluted, or misrepresented.
That is why the DNA India framing of “hijacked?” fits the public concern.
This is bigger than trademark
CJP has already faced disputes around its name and identity. Trademark-style attempts appeared after the movement went viral. Now this reported ECI application adds a political registration layer to the same problem.
The pattern is clear:
- First the name became viral.
- Then the accounts were hit.
- Then the website faced blocking.
- Then trademark attempts appeared.
- Now a separate ECI registration attempt has been reported.
Every step proves the same point: CJP is now valuable enough for people to try to control it.
CJP’s position should be clear
The movement should treat this as an identity-capture issue.
If anyone wants to protect CJP, they should coordinate transparently with the founder, the existing public platform, and the members who built the movement. If someone wants to register the name, use the logo, claim office-bearer status, and change the objectives separately, supporters have the right to ask hard questions.
The question is not whether CJP should ever become a registered party.
The question is whether it should be registered without the founder and without the original movement’s consent.
What supporters should do now
Supporters should stay calm, verify updates only from official CJP channels, and avoid trusting random claims of “official registration” unless they are confirmed by the original movement.
Membership remains free. The .buzz website remains the safest verification point. Do not share personal details or money with pages claiming to represent CJP unless they are clearly linked from the official platform.
Sources
This article is based on Hindustan Times’ report titled “Lawyer seeks to register Cockroach Janta Party separately from US-based founder”, reported by Harsh Yadav and updated on 26 May 2026. Hindustan Times reported that Sudhir Jakhar filed the application with the ECI separately from Abhijeet Dipke, used the CJP cockroach logo, and described himself as national convener. DNA India also covered the same controversy under the framing “Cockroach Janta Party hijacked? Haryana lawyer vs US founder”.
The cockroach record
First they laughed at the name. Then they tried to block the accounts. Then they questioned the followers. Then they tried to claim the trademark. Now someone wants to register the party separately from the founder.
That is how you know the movement has become real.
Nobody tries to capture something worthless.
The cockroach was supposed to be an insult. Now it is a political asset.
But the colony remembers where it came from.
Join CJP free → or buy the digital badge →
Membership is free. Badge optional. Main Bhi Cockroach.