Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Saturday issued a clarification after parts of his courtroom remarks- in which he likened some unemployed youngsters to “cockroaches”- were widely reported. In a written statement, the CJI said media outlets had “misquoted” his oral observations and that his criticism was aimed only at those who entered professions using “fake or bogus degrees,” not at Indian youth in general.
“I am pained to read how a section of the media has misquoted my oral observations made during the hearing of a frivolous case yesterday,” the CJI said. “What I had specifically criticised were those who have entered professions like the Bar (legal profession) with the aid of fake and bogus degrees. Similar persons have sneaked into the media, social media and other noble professions as well, and hence, they are like parasites.”
What was the context of the remarks?
The clarification followed a Supreme Court hearing the previous day, when a bench comprising CJI Surya Kantand Justice Joymalya Bagchi reprimanded a lawyer who had filed a petition seeking directions to the Delhi High Court about the designation of a Senior Advocate- a status the petitioner himself was aspiring to. The bench termed the petition “frivolous” and expressed strong displeasure at repeated and unmeritorious litigation, said a report of ANI and Live Law.
Annoyed by the filing, the CJI made sharp oral observations from the bench, saying: “There are already parasites of society who attack the system and you want to join hands with them? There are youngsters like cockroaches, they don’t get any employment, they don’t have any place in profession. Some of them become media, some of them become social media, some of them become RTI activists, some of them become other activists, and they start attacking everyone…And you people file contempt petitions,” Live Law quoted him as saying.
The bench dismissed the petition- which the court noted had been filed for the third time before the Supreme Court- and told the petitioner, “The whole world might be eligible for senior designation, but at least you are not.” When the petitioner apologised and sought to withdraw the plea, the bench accepted the apology and allowed the withdrawal.
The CJI’s later statement expressed particular concern about the integrity of legal qualifications in Delhi, saying he suspected a large number of law degrees could be fake and that he would want the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to verify them.
ALSO READRs 30,000 for third child, Rs 40,000 for fourth: Chandrababu Naidu govt offers cash, benefits to encourage ‘higher birth rates’ in Andhra Pradesh
CJI issues clarification
CJI Surya Kant explained later that his remarks were not a condemnation of India’s youth as a whole, but were directed specifically at those who have entered professions using fake or bogus qualifications. He warned that similar individuals have infiltrated media, social media and other professions, which is why he likened them to “parasites,” and called it “totally baseless” to suggest he criticised the nation’s youth. “Not only am I proud of our present and future human resource, but every youth of India inspires me,” he added, describing young Indians as “the pillars of a developed India.”
The CJI linked his remarks to a broader worry about the authenticity of professional qualifications, saying a significant number of law degrees in Delhi “could be fake” and expressing a desire for investigative verification, with the CBI mentioned as a potential agency to probe the matter. Media coverage of the bench’s language prompted debate over judicial tone and its appropriateness when referring to citizens or professionals: some legal professionals and commentators defended the bench’s frustration at repeated frivolous litigation and possible misuse of academic credentials to gain advantage, while others criticised the use of demeaning metaphors in court and urged senior judges to use careful, precise language to avoid misunderstanding and public hurt.
Why the clarification of CJI matters in this incident?
Public trust in the judiciary is at stake when remarks from the country’s highest judicial office are widely reported. The CJI’s clarification aims to limit reputational damage and reassure the public—particularly young professionals—that the court does not hold a blanket negative view of India’s youth. By emphasising that his criticism targeted individuals who obtained positions through fraudulent qualifications, the CJI sought to restore confidence and reduce misunderstanding. Key developments to monitor include whether the Supreme Court or government agencies initiate formal checks into the authenticity of law degrees in Delhi and whether the CBI is asked to assist.
</p> |
