Exclusive: CJI Surya Kant clarifies 'cockroach' remark, calls for protocol on reporting oral court observations

The "cockroach" remark has become one of the most significant judicial observations of recent months, triggering criticism, social media outrage and accusations that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) had targeted the country's youth.

CJI Surya Kant now says that was never the case.

In an exclusive conversation with Bar & Bench's Debayan Roy, the Chief Justice says that the observation was made during a discussion on lawyers who had entered the profession using fake or unrecognised law degrees, and not about students or young people.

He also speaks at length about another controversy surrounding the reporting of his oral remarks during mentionings, explains why he believes those observations were taken out of context and calls for a protocol governing how oral court proceedings are reported.

Edited excerpts follow.

Debayan Roy [DR]: Your oral observations during the mentioning of a plea concerning the student protests were widely reported. In court today, you said that those remarks had been misrepresented. Could you explain what actually transpired and why you felt it necessary to clarify the record?

CJI Surya Kant: You see, whenever mentioning takes place, the Registry informs me about the matters that have been filed in the Supreme Court and are seeking urgent hearing. They briefly give me the list. For example, one matter may pertain to the SIR, another to a transport problem, another to a strike or something else.

I had been asking them whether any petition had been filed regarding the students' agitation or the youngsters' agitation. They consistently told me that no petition had been filed in the Supreme Court. On that day also, before I sat in court, I was given the complete details. No petition had been filed.

Still, somebody came and made a mentioning as if a petition had already been filed and urgently required hearing. That is why I said, "Please don't waste your time and my time."

I cannot say in open court, "Go and file a petition," because I cannot invite litigation. But if somebody wants to file a case, I will never say no. The Supreme Court is definitely open for everyone. It was in that background that I made those remarks. He had not filed any petition. Except for a one-page letter addressed to the Secretary General, nothing had been filed.

Now, the Secretary General is not the authority to take a decision. If somebody from Kerala or the North East writes to me requesting that a representation be treated as a suo motu petition, I will still examine it. If it deserves consideration, I may entertain it. But a lawyer practising in the Supreme Court, physically present in my court, cannot expect me to take suo motu action on a few lines in an application. He should file a proper petition.

He did not do so. That is why I later clarified the position.

DR: You have always maintained that the Supreme Court is open to everyone, including the youth of this country. Yet, after your oral observations were reported, there was a barrage of criticism and social media attacks suggesting otherwise. As Chief Justice, how did you react to that?

CJI Surya Kant: Personally, as the Chief Justice of India, or even my colleagues, we may not bother much about such adverse comments because we are used to them. But as the head of the Indian judiciary, my concern is different.

Such misreporting misleads the public. It creates a wrong impression about the Indian judiciary and projects a negative image of the institution for completely baseless reasons. My concern is that the people of this country, who are entitled to know what is actually happening, should not be fed filtered and one-sided information.

That is why I expressed my concern.

DR: There was also considerable controversy surrounding your "cockroach" remark. You later said that your observation was taken out of context.

CJI Surya Kant: Completely out of context. Completely.

Let me share the background. The matter being discussed concerned lawyers who had entered the profession on the basis of fake or false law degrees. By fake degrees, I mean unrecognised degrees. Some people had never attended law colleges. Sitting at home, they somehow obtained degrees. I am told there are about 48,000 such lawyers in the country whose law degrees were never issued by the universities they claim.

The discussion was about how these fake lawyers have become problematic in the legal system. It was in that context that I said they were virtually like cockroaches. My observation was made only in that context, about where they were coming from and how they had entered the system.

It was never about the youth. That is why I said I had been completely misquoted.

DR: During today's hearing, the Court discussed evolving a protocol/put guardrails for the recording, dissemination and reporting of court proceedings in the age of live-streaming. What are the broader concerns that have led the Court to initiate that conversation?

CJI Surya Kant: I strongly recommend that there should be a protocol. Today's order regarding the video and audio recording of court proceedings is one interim direction that we have issued. I appreciate that the Supreme Court Bar Association took the initiative in bringing the issue forward.

Even in the context of oral mentionings, I personally believe that either the media should receive a proper briefing or, frankly speaking, mentionings should not be reported at all.

People must understand that mentioning is largely administrative in nature. It is a semi-administrative and semi-judicial exercise. You will appreciate that mentioning is not before the Bench. The judges sitting to my left or right have no role to play in mentioning.

It is purely an administrative function that I perform while sitting in court on account of administrative convenience. These are not judicial observations, because the matter is not before me on the judicial side. I am only deciding whether a case deserves an out-of-turn and extraordinarily urgent hearing.

It is a very important decision that has to be taken at that moment. People are taking these remarks out of context.

DR: Today's order restrains the unauthorised dissemination and commercial exploitation of courtroom proceeding videos, while exempting bona fide news reporting. Could you clarify whether that exemption also extends to the publication of courtroom proceeding videos by the media?

CJI Surya Kant: No, today's order does not mean there is a gag on the press. News organisations can continue to publish recordings of court proceedings as they happened.

The order is primarily aimed at social media handles and others who distort judicial proceedings and present them to the public in a misleading manner.

DR: As the administrative head of the Indian judiciary, what is the one change you believe is necessary to prevent such situations from recurring?

CJI Surya Kant: I think the most important thing that requires change is the mindset. Proceedings in courts should not be treated as a source for creating news. They should simply be reported.

Reporting should be qualitatively based upon a new principle laid down, some jurisprudential growth, some new issue that is important for society, something very important for the nation. And perhaps, most importantly, something that benefits the underprivileged - people living in rural areas and marginalised communities. If something good happens for them, I think that should be widely reported so that they get to know that something for their benefit has happened.

Not that one oral remark or one word is taken out of context, a news item is built around it and then social media keeps encashing on it because, frankly speaking, this has become a source of monetisation. That is what concerns me.