Supreme Court to examine plea on fair criticism vs distortion of judges' remarks

The Supreme Court on Monday said it would consider a plea seeking to distinguish legitimate criticism of the judiciary from online distortion of what judges actually say in court. Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that judges “walk a very thin line” when a litigant pointed out how social media can misrepresent courtroom remarks.

Advocate Raja Choudhary, making an oral mentioning, submitted that while judges may be criticised for erroneous judgments or unsound reasoning, condemning them for words never uttered shifts the criticism from the judicial record to a constructed version of it. “This application is not an apprehension against criticism, it is an apprehension against distortion acquiring the appearance of judicial fact,” he said.

Mr. Choudhary urged the Chief Justice to list his petition early, citing a recent speech by former Supreme Court judge Justice K.M. Joseph on the need for speedy listing of important constitutional cases. The Chief Justice asked the petitioner to wait for the Union government’s response.

The petitioner highlighted the fundamental distinction between a question from the Bench, an observation, a submission of counsel, a hypothetical proposition, a rhetorical expression and an actual judicial finding. He warned that an oral courtroom exchange could rapidly be reduced to a short clip, headline, screenshot, meme or social media post stripped of context. “Once such a representation enters the public domain, its repetition may acquire an authority independent of the original proceedings,” he submitted.

The plea is linked to an earlier petition on which the court had on August 11 sought responses from central ministries. That petition demanded a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the “activities” of a “digital-political formation” called Cockroach Janta Party, and alleged commercial exploitation, trademark appropriation and monetised circulation of oral remarks made in court proceedings. A three-judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice had issued notice to the Union government, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Bar Council of India and the CBI.

The controversy dates back to May 15, when the Chief Justice reportedly referred to “cockroach” during a hearing about fake law degree holders. The remark went viral, spawning an online platform named Cockroach Janta Party. The next day, the Chief Justice clarified that he was misquoted by sections of the media, and expressed the greatest concern and respect for the youth of the country.

The petition contends that vernacular, culturally direct and non-elite modes of institutional speech associated with rural and non-metropolitan traditions are often subjected to disproportionate ridicule in elite digital ecosystems. It argues that the spontaneous use of metaphorical expressions like “cockroach” reflects institutional frustration at the decline in legal professionals’ standards. The plea adds that such metaphorical references have historically existed in literature, jurisprudence, constitutional discourse, political theory and legal philosophy.