Cockroaches’ attacking system: SC rebukes over growing assaults on judiciary
The Supreme Court sternly criticized ongoing attacks on the judiciary during a hearing on a contempt petition related to senior advocate designation guidelines. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi condemned the petitioner’s conduct and warned against inflammatory language targeting institutions. The bench also raised concerns about fake degrees among lawyers and suggested a CBI probe, before allowing the petitioner to withdraw.
Why It Matters
The remarks signal the judiciary's intent to deter attacks on institutions and highlight concerns about professional misconduct and credential integrity within the legal system, potentially prompting tighter scrutiny of law degrees and Bar Council actions.
Timeline
1 Event
SC remarks during petition on senior advocate designation
During the hearing of advocate Sanjay Dubey's petition seeking contempt action over delays in implementing the Supreme Court's guidelines on senior advocate designation, the bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi criticized the petitioner and the broader trend of attacks on the judiciary. The CJI described unemployed youngsters who become media, social media, RTI activists and other activists as 'cockroaches' who attack institutions, and questioned whether senior designation is merely a 'status symbol' ornamental to be kept rather than for participation in the justice system. He noted that 'the entire world may be eligible to become senior (advocate), but at least you are not entitled.' The court urged caution about language on Facebook, warning about the meaning of discipline in the profession and asking whether the petitioner wished to 'join hands with' existing 'parasites' in society. The bench also flagged concerns about thousands of fraudulent degrees among lawyers, suggesting that the Central Bureau of Investigation should investigate, and added that Bar Council authorities might not act firmly because 'they need their votes.' As the hearing progressed, the petitioner apologized and sought permission to withdraw the plea, which the bench permitted.