CJI Surya Kant clarifies ‘cockroach’ remarks on unemployed youth
In a statement issued a day after the comment sparked controversy, CJI Kant said, “I am saddened to read how a section of the media misquoted my verbal observations during the hearing of a frivolous case yesterday.”Clarifying the context of his remarks, he said, “What I was particularly critical of was those who entered professions like the Bar (legal profession) with bogus and bogus degrees. Similar persons also lurk in media, social media and other noble professions and are therefore like parasites.”Terming reports targeting Indian youth as ‘completely baseless’, the Chief Justice added, “I am not only proud of our present and future human resources, but every youth of India inspires me. It is no exaggeration to say that Indian youth have immense respect and reverence for me and I also see them as the pillars of a better India.”CJI Kant, a day after hearing a plea filed by a lawyer seeking designation as a senior advocate, made a scathing observation about allegations of some unemployed youth and individuals attacking institutions through social media and activism.During Friday’s hearing, a bench comprising CJI Kant and Justice Jayamalya Bagchi criticized the petitioner for aggressively pursuing the designation of senior advocate, observing that such recognition is given by the court and is ‘not something to chase.Referring to the petitioner’s conduct and social media activities, the Chief Justice remarked, “There are parasites in the society who attack the system and you want to join hands with them?”He further said, “There are youth like cockroaches, who do not get any job or place in the profession. Some of them become media, some become social media, RTI activists and other activists and they start attacking everyone.”The bench also raised concerns about the authenticity of some law degrees, observing that there are serious doubts about fake qualifications in the legal profession. It added that the Bar Council of India is unlikely to act as it ‘needs their vote’.The petitioner later apologized before the bench and sought permission to withdraw the petition, which the court allowed.
