New Delhi, May 15
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Friday drew attention for his sharp remarks against unemployed youth and activists during a Supreme Court hearing concerning a lawyer’s plea for senior advocate designation.Hearing the matter alongwith Justice Joymalya Bagchi, the bench criticised the petitioner for allegedly trying to “pursue” the designation rather than allowing it to be conferred through merit and professional standing.
During the proceedings, the CJI used strong language while referring to individuals he claimed were critical of institutions. He compared some unemployed youngsters to “cockroaches”, alleging that they later turn into media figures, social media commentators or RTI activists who “attack the system”.The bench also described such critics as “parasites” and questioned the petitioner over his conduct, including comments allegedly made on Facebook. “The entire world may be eligible to become senior advocate, but at least you are not entitled,” the bench told the lawyer. A visibly displeased CJI Kant further remarked that even if the Delhi High Court granted the petitioner senior advocate status, the Supreme Court could overturn the decision after examining his professional behaviour.
“There are already parasites of society who attack the system and you want to join hands with them?” the CJI asked during the hearing.
“Is this the behaviour expected from someone seeking designation as a senior advocate?” the judges asked.The court stressed that senior advocate status is an honour bestowed by the judiciary and not something to be actively campaigned for. It criticised the petitioner for allegedly pursuing the designation in an inappropriate manner.
“You are pursuing it. Does it look proper?” the bench remarked, while also questioning whether the title had become merely a symbolic status marker.The judges further observed that there were serious doubts about the authenticity of degrees held by some lawyers and said the Central Bureau of Investigation could be asked to verify such credentials.
The bench also criticised the Bar Council of India, saying it was unlikely to take action because it depended on lawyers’ votes. Following the sharp observations, the petitioner apologised to the court and requested permission to withdraw the plea. The bench accepted the request and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
