The recent comments made by Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, during a court hearing have sparked significant debate. The controversy arose when Chief Justice Kant, while addressing a petition calling for contempt proceedings over delays in enforcing guidelines for Senior Advocate designations, admonished the petitioner. His critical remarks suggested that the petitioner aligned with societal elements that resort to activism and social media, describing certain young professionals in the legal field as ‘cockroaches’ lacking employment.
The use of such strong language, particularly the term ‘cockroaches’, has been sharply criticized. Chief Justice Kant later clarified that his comments were misquoted and were intended to target individuals entering the legal profession with fraudulent credentials. Such issues concerning youth unemployment and challenges within the legal profession are complex and require thoughtful institutional approaches rather than generalized criticism. Consequently, regardless of intention, the remarks were deemed inappropriate and have faced condemnation.
Importantly, the focus should shift from the language used to the broader issue of judicial process abuse. Chief Justice Kant’s concerns highlight a genuine institutional challenge, but his critique may be misdirected. Instead of targeting young lawyers, the judiciary should address the trends where legal processes are manipulated for political or ideological purposes, actions contrary to established legal principles and judicial integrity. The judiciary must uphold its jurisprudence and procedural discipline to curb such practices comprehensively.
Proliferation of Frivolous and Motivated Petitions
Since the advent of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the courts have warned against exploiting judicial proceedings for personal or political gain. The landmark case SP Gupta v. Union of India (1981) explicitly stated that petitions driven by personal or political motives should be dismissed from the outset. Despite this, the enforcement of these threshold rules has been inconsistent, with courts often entertaining petitions labeled as ‘Publicity Interest Litigation’ or ‘Political Interest Litigation’. Such practices persist due to selective application and the courts’ own leniency in dismissing meritless petitions.
Particularly concerning is the indulgence shown towards individuals frequently filing poorly constructed petitions that delve into political or policy matters beyond judicial scope. This misuse of the judicial process undermines the original intent of PIL and calls for a more robust enforcement of maintainability and standing rules. Chief Justice Kant’s approach of dismissing such petitions is commendable, but consistency across the judiciary is crucial.
More Read
Forum Shopping and Judicial Polyvocality
A related issue is the strategic filing of petitions before judges perceived as more sympathetic, known as forum shopping. This is evident in cases involving policy issues where litigants seek favorable outcomes by refiling petitions before different benches. A notable instance involves litigation on religious conversion guidelines, where initial petitions were withdrawn from certain courts only to be pursued before benches more inclined to hear them substantively.
While judicial polyvocality can be seen as a strength, it should not facilitate strategic navigation of the legal system by litigants. Maintaining procedural discipline is essential to preserve judicial legitimacy, ensuring that judicial forums are not used to advance particular political or ideological preferences.
Judicial Proceedings in the Political Arena
Live-streaming of court proceedings has enhanced transparency and accountability; however, it has also led to misuse by political entities for purposes beyond its intended scope. The 2018 judgment on live-streaming stated that footage should serve news, current affairs, and education, not commercial or promotional interests. Nevertheless, judicial proceedings are increasingly utilized for political point-scoring.
Instances include political parties using courtroom exchanges to target opponents, as noted in proceedings involving the Enforcement Directorate and West Bengal’s TMC government, and the Delhi High Court case involving Arvind Kejriwal. This trend risks altering adjudication’s character, turning courts into political arenas, and impacting public perception of judicial neutrality.
Conclusion: Upholding Judicial Authority through Judgments
The judiciary’s authority lies not just in its power but in the justification of that power through reasoned judgments. Judges must communicate through their decisions rather than broad remarks. While courtroom dialogue is crucial, it should focus on the case at hand, avoiding expansive social or political commentary that could undermine judicial neutrality.
In the digital age, where judicial remarks can be easily sensationalized, courts must be vigilant about how their words are perceived. Enforcing existing guidelines and exercising restraint can help mitigate misuse while maintaining the judiciary’s credibility.
Swapnil Tripathi is the head of Charkha, the Constitutional Law Centre at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. His views are personal.
