During a Supreme Court hearing on May 15, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, sitting alongside Justice Joymalya Bagchi, made controversial remarks while hearing a plea filed by a lawyer challenging the Delhi High Court’s process for granting Senior Advocate designation.
Criticising what he described as a growing trend of attacks on institutions, the CJI stated that some unemployed youngsters become “media persons, social media users, RTI activists and other activists” who “start attacking everyone”, likening them to “cockroaches”.
The bench also questioned the petitioner’s conduct and social media activity, warning that any future Senior Advocate designation could be revoked if professional standards were violated. Additionally, concerns were raised about the authenticity of certain law degrees held by advocates practising in Delhi.
The remarks have drawn mixed reactions, with some defending the judiciary’s frustration over online criticism while others argue that the language unfairly stigmatises unemployed youth and activists.
Senior Advocate Row Intensifies
The controversy emerged during a hearing concerning the process of designation of Senior Advocates by the Delhi High Court. The petitioner, an advocate, had reportedly challenged aspects of the selection process and sought judicial intervention. During the proceedings, the Supreme Court bench sharply questioned the petitioner’s conduct, particularly his social media posts and public statements related to the judiciary.
Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that the legal profession was increasingly witnessing individuals who “attack the system” rather than strengthening it. In one of the hearing’s most discussed moments, he remarked that unemployed youngsters who fail to secure opportunities often drift towards activism, social media commentary or RTI work and begin criticising institutions. Referring to such individuals, he used the phrase “like cockroaches”, a comparison that quickly triggered outrage online after media reports of the hearing surfaced.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi also expressed dissatisfaction with the repeated pursuit of Senior Advocate designation through litigation. According to reports, he remarked that the honour of being designated a Senior Advocate is something that is “conferred” based on merit and standing, rather than something that should be aggressively pursued in court. The bench ultimately permitted the petitioner to withdraw the plea after the tense exchange.
The hearing also took an unexpected turn when the CJI raised concerns regarding allegedly dubious law degrees among some advocates practising in Delhi. He reportedly stated that there were “serious doubts” about the authenticity of certain degrees and suggested that investigative agencies, including the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), may eventually need to examine the matter. These observations added another layer to the hearing, linking the debate not only to professional conduct but also to broader concerns around standards within the legal profession.
Judiciary, Activism And Dissent
The remarks have since triggered intense discussion across legal and public circles, particularly regarding the language used by individuals occupying constitutional positions. Critics argued that comparing unemployed youth and activists to pests risked dehumanising large sections of society already struggling with economic uncertainty and shrinking opportunities.
Several commentators pointed out that RTI activists, journalists and civil society members have historically played a crucial role in exposing corruption, strengthening accountability and safeguarding democratic institutions.
Many social media users also highlighted India’s ongoing unemployment crisis, arguing that frustration among young people cannot simply be dismissed as hostility towards institutions. According to recent government and independent employment surveys, concerns around job scarcity, underemployment and career insecurity continue to affect millions of educated young Indians.
Against this backdrop, critics felt the remarks appeared insensitive to the lived realities of many citizens. At the same time, some legal observers defended the judiciary’s frustration with increasing online hostility, misinformation and targeted attacks directed at courts and judges.
In recent years, several judges and institutions have faced intense scrutiny and criticism across social media platforms, sometimes accompanied by misinformation campaigns or personal abuse. Supporters of the CJI’s comments argued that the judiciary is under unprecedented pressure and that the remarks reflected broader concerns about declining respect for institutions.
Importantly, legal experts clarified that the statements were oral observations made during courtroom proceedings and do not carry the force of law unless included in a formal written order or judgment. However, oral remarks from constitutional courts often receive significant public attention and can influence wider public conversations. This is why many believe that restraint and sensitivity in judicial language remain especially important.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Institutions derive their strength not only from authority, but also from public trust, compassion and the ability to engage with criticism thoughtfully. At a time when many young Indians are confronting unemployment, social anxiety and growing uncertainty about the future, words from influential public figures carry immense emotional and social impact.
While concerns around misinformation, online abuse and institutional attacks are valid, democratic societies are strengthened when disagreement is addressed through dialogue rather than language that may appear dismissive or dehumanising.
Also read: UAE Accelerates West-East Pipeline Expansion to Bypass Strait of Hormuz Amid Rising Iran Tensions
