CJI Surya Kant remarked in open court that some unemployed youngsters are like cockroaches, stating that many without roles in the profession turn into media, social media, RTI activists and other activists who then begin attacking everyone today.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant courted controversy in open court after remarking that certain unemployed young people are like cockroaches.
He said that, when they fail to find work, they reinvent themselves as members of the media, social media figures, and RTI activists and start attacking everyone.
The remarks came as he also reprimanded a lawyer for pursuing the coveted senior advocate designation in an aggressive manner.
The sharp observations were made during a hearing before a bench comprising CJI Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
The court was examining a petition filed by a Delhi-based lawyer challenging parts of the procedure used to designate senior advocates, while also asserting his own claim to receive the status. The bench showed visible irritation with the lawyer’s approach and with certain social media posts attributed to him.
During the proceedings, the judges raised questions about his eligibility and his conduct in court.
Signalling that the court was not impressed with his attempt to secure the honour, the CJI told the lawyer from the dais,
“The entire world may be eligible to become senior (advocate), but at least you are not entitled,”
He further added,
‘Youngsters Like Cockroaches… They Become Media, RTI Activists’
In the same exchange, CJI Kant expanded into a critique of what he described as a growing group of professional detractors who, according to him, target institutions from outside.
He said, according to the court record,
“There are youngsters like cockroaches, who don’t get any employment or have any place in profession. Some of them become media, some of them become social media, RTI activists and other activists and they start attacking everyone,”
The bench also drew attention to the language used by the petitioner in Facebook posts, suggesting it reflected poorly on his suitability for elevation.
The CJI asked, indicating that the court perceived a link between harsh online commentary and efforts to undermine judicial processes,
“There are already parasites of society who attack the system and you want to join hands with them?”
He said,
‘If High Court Makes You Senior, We’ll Set It Aside’
Beyond rhetorical criticism, the bench pressed further on the petitioner’s insistence that he should be designated a senior advocate. The judges clarified that senior status should be granted as recognition of merit, not treated like a personal prize.
They asked,
“Is this the conduct of a person who seeks to be designated as a senior advocate?”
The bench asked,
“You are pursuing it. Does it look proper? Is a senior advocate designation a status symbol to be kept ornamentally?”
At one stage, the CJI indicated that if the Delhi High Court were to award senior designation to the lawyer, the Supreme Court would likely be inclined to undo it due to the lawyer’s conduct. The bench also questioned whether the lawyer had other cases to focus on, suggesting that his priorities were misplaced.
Senior advocate designation is governed under Section 16 of the Advocates Act and the Supreme Court’s 2017 guidelines. It is meant for advocates with standing and ability, specialised knowledge, and a proven record in court proceedings.
Typically, it is based on recommendations by a permanent committee rather than being claimed directly by individual demand.
The bench further raised concerns about the legitimacy of law degrees held by some members of the Bar.
The CJI said the court was considering asking the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to verify the educational qualifications of many of those who were wearing black robes, noting that there were serious doubts about how some advocates obtained their credentials.
The CJI also criticised the Bar Council of India (BCI), stating that the regulator was unlikely to act on such matters because it needs their votes.
The comment was seen as an indication of what the bench viewed as the politicisation of regulatory oversight within the legal profession.
After hearing the court’s comments, the petitioner apologised to the bench and requested permission to withdraw his plea. The court permitted the withdrawal, ending the immediate proceedings.