NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought responses from the government and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on a PIL seeking action against those accused of commercially exploiting Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s “cockroach” remark by selectively editing virtual court proceedings and portraying it in a context that, according to the petitioner, was never intended.
The remark, made three months ago, sparked controversy and led to the formation of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which became associated with a Gen Z protest over the NEET-UG paper leak.
During a nearly half-hour hearing before a bench comprising CJI Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, petitioner and advocate Raja Choudhary argued that the matter warranted a deeper investigation.
Choudhary said the word “cockroach”, which was used in a completely different context during judicial proceedings on May 15, had been selectively picked, edited and commercially exploited in a manner that undermined the dignity of the judiciary and hurt institutional integrity.
The petitioner sought directions to the authorities to investigate and take action under the law against individuals and entities allegedly involved in the commercial exploitation, trademark appropriation, monetised circulation or unauthorised commercial use of oral observations and metaphors made during court proceedings.
At the same time, the plea acknowledged that fair criticism, democratic dissent, satire and free speech remain protected within the constitutional framework, provided they do not undermine institutional dignity.
Referring to the May 15 hearing before a CJI-led bench in the case Sanjay Dubey vs Registrar General of Delhi High Court, Choudhary submitted that the “cockroach” remark was made specifically in the context of fake advocates.
According to the petitioner, CJI Kant had raised concerns over the misuse of court processes, declining professional standards and their impact on the institution.
Choudhary argued that there had been a sharp increase in clips of selectively edited judicial proceedings since May 15. He alleged that distorted versions of oral observations made in court were being converted into memes and circulated on social media for commercial gain.
He further submitted that there was currently no effective mechanism to address what he described as attempts to diminish public faith in the judiciary and judges by presenting their remarks out of context or portraying them in a negative light.
