New Delhi: CJI Surya Kant has issued a formal clarification regarding his controversial courtroom observations from Friday, stating that a section of the media had distorted his remarks. The Chief Justice emphasized that he holds the nation’s youth in high esteem and views them as the pillars of a developed India, countering the widespread criticism that followed his oral observations.
During a Supreme Court hearing on Friday, the CJI had reportedly observed that certain unemployed youth, social media users, RTI activists, and others act like “cockroaches” and “parasites” who launch attacks on the institutional system. Addressing the controversy in court on Saturday, CJI Surya Kant expressed deep anguish over how his statements were projected.
“I was deeply pained to read that a section of the media misrepresented my oral observations made during the hearing of a case yesterday,” the Chief Justice stated. He clarified that his criticism was specific to institutional infiltration, targeting individuals who enter prestigious professions through fraudulent means.
“I had specifically criticized those who have entered professions like legal practice on the strength of fake and forged degrees. Such elements have also infiltrated the media, social media, and other noble professions, acting as parasites,” the CJI explained. Defending his stance on the country’s younger demographic, Justice Surya Kant added that the youth share a mutual respect with him.
“I am proud of our present and future human resource. It is no exaggeration to say that the Indian youth hold me in high regard and affection, and I look upon them as the pillars of Viksit Bharat,” he said.
The Genesis of the Controversy
The controversial exchange took place during a bench hearing comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The division bench was processing a petition concerning the conferment of ‘Senior Advocate’ status to a practicing lawyer. The bench took sharp exception to the petitioner’s aggressive posturing and past conduct to secure the designation, specifically pointing out the language the lawyer allegedly used on Facebook.
“The whole world may be eligible to become a senior advocate, but at least you are not entitled,” the bench told the petitioner during the heated exchange. The Chief Justice had questioned the lawyer’s online behavior, asking if he intended to join forces with elements that actively work to destabilize institutional frameworks.
“There are already parasites in society who attack the system, and you want to join hands with them?” the CJI had asked on Friday, before making the analogy regarding standard professions, RTI activists, and digital commentators. The Supreme Court reiterated that professional designations require a high standard of merit and conduct, which cannot be bypassed through aggressive institutional pressure or social media campaigns.
