Can oral observations by courts be commercially exploited, monetised? Supreme Court seeks response from MEITY, BCI

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought responses from Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), Bar Council of India (BCI) and others on whether oral observations made during court proceedings can be commercially exploited, monetised or turned into digital commodities [Raja Choudhary v Union of India & Ors.].

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a plea filed by advocate Raja Choudhary.

The plea before the Court submitted that oral exchanges made during judicial proceedings cannot be taken out of context and converted into commercial or political content.

“Oral exchanges occurring during judicial proceedings before the Supreme Court of India cannot constitutionally be transformed into commercial digital property, meme commodities, symbolic merchandise, or monetised public spectacle detached from judicial context and institutional dignity,” stated the plea.

The petition arose from Supreme Court proceedings on May 15, during which the Bench headed by CJI Kant expressed concerns over unemployed young lawyers drifting away from practice toward social media and RTI activism.

CJI Kant had said that such "youngsters like cockroaches" were becoming parasites in society. This reference to “cockroaches” made during the hearing were subsequently circulated on social media and became associated with the “Cockroach Janta Party” (CJP) satirical online movement.

The movement subsequently gained traction across social media platforms, particularly among younger users, with hundreds of thousands of followers on X and over 22 million followers on Instagram.

CJI Kant had later clarified that his observations were directed at individuals entering professions through forged qualifications and fake degrees, not unemployed young Indians generally.

Notably, in July, the CJP organised a massive protest at Jantar Mantar demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over leak of NEET and other question papers.

The Union Minister eventually resigned from office.

The petition before the Court argued that the subsequent developments, after CJI Kant's comments during the hearing, went beyond legitimate criticism, satire or political expression.

“The transformation of spontaneous courtroom interaction into commercially exploitable political symbolism raises serious constitutional concerns regarding institutional dignity of constitutional courts, misuse of judicial proceedings and commodification of constitutional discourse,” stated the plea.

The petition further referred to alleged trademark applications, branding and monetised digital circulation associated with the “Cockroach Janta Party”.

According to the plea, this amounts to organised commercial appropriation of judicial controversy and courtroom interaction.

The petition, therefore, sought competent authorities to examine these activities and take action against persons or entities allegedly involved.

However, the petitioner clarified that the plea is not aimed at restricting criticism of the judiciary, democratic dissent, satire or constitutionally protected free speech.

Instead, the plea asks the Court to examine the distinction between legitimate criticism and the alleged misrepresentation, commercial appropriation or distortion of judicial proceedings.

The petition also sought an independent probe, preferably by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), into allegations concerning fake advocates, fraudulent law degrees and impersonation in legal practice as well as activities of persons associated with the Cockroach Janta Party.

The Court will consider all these issues after receiving responses from the respondents.