Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s comparison of some unemployed youngsters to “cockroaches” during a Supreme Court hearing on May 15 has triggered sharp debate over judicial language, professional ethics and the place of media, social media and RTI activism in public accountability.
The remarks were made by a Bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi while hearing a petition linked to the conferment of senior advocate designation. The petitioner, a lawyer, had approached the court over issues connected with the Delhi High Court’s process for granting the designation. The Bench took exception to the lawyer’s conduct, including language attributed to him on social media, and questioned whether such behaviour was compatible with the standing expected of a senior advocate.
CJI Kant said there were “parasites” in society who attacked institutions and then added that there were youngsters “like cockroaches” who did not get employment or a place in the profession and went on to become media, social media, RTI activists and other activists before attacking everyone. The petitioner apologised and was allowed to withdraw the plea.
The exchange has drawn attention not only because of the words used by the country’s top judge, but also because it came in a matter involving professional recognition within the legal system. Senior advocate designation is a mark of distinction conferred by the Supreme Court and High Courts under the Advocates Act, 1961, and is meant to recognise legal ability, standing at the Bar and special knowledge or experience in law. The Supreme Court’s 2026 guidelines provide for a Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates, chaired by the CJI and comprising two senior-most judges, with a permanent secretariat to initiate the process.
The court’s criticism appeared to be directed at what it saw as misuse of legal processes, contempt petitions and public commentary by lawyers seeking professional advancement. CJI Kant also referred to doubts over the credentials of some lawyers, saying that “thousands” of people in black robes had serious questions over their degrees and that the Central Bureau of Investigation needed to act. That remark added a wider institutional dimension to a hearing that began as a dispute over senior designation.
The language, however, has opened a separate controversy. RTI activists, journalists and digital commentators operate in a space that is often adversarial by design, questioning public authorities, exposing procedural failures and amplifying grievances. The Right to Information framework has been central to transparency campaigns for two decades, while social media has become a parallel arena for scrutiny of courts, police, bureaucracy and professional bodies. A sweeping association between unemployment, activism and attacks on institutions risks being read as dismissive of legitimate public-interest work.
At the same time, the court’s concern over irresponsible public allegations cannot be separated from the pressures facing the justice system. Judges and lawyers increasingly deal with viral commentary, edited clips, anonymous campaigns and online pressure around pending matters. Senior members of the judiciary have repeatedly warned that criticism of judgments is acceptable, but personal attacks, intimidation and misinformation can weaken public confidence in courts. The challenge lies in distinguishing scrutiny from abuse without chilling lawful dissent.
The senior advocate process itself has been under scrutiny for years. The Supreme Court’s earlier point-based framework, shaped by the Indira Jaising litigation, was intended to bring transparency to a designation system long criticised as opaque and dependent on informal influence. Subsequent changes moved the system towards a more qualitative assessment, placing heavier reliance on institutional judgment by judges. That shift has generated debate within the Bar over whether discretion can coexist with transparency and whether disappointed applicants have adequate avenues for review.
