Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Saturday, 17 May 2025, issued a formal clarification stating that his oral observations — including references to 'parasites' and 'youngsters like cockroaches' — had been misquoted by sections of the media, and that his criticism was directed solely at individuals who had infiltrated professions using fake and bogus degrees, not at India's youth at large.

What the CJI Actually Said

In a written statement, CJI Kant said he was 'pained' to read reports portraying him as having criticised the nation's young people. 'I am pained to read how a section of the media has misquoted my oral observations made during the hearing of a frivolous case yesterday,' he said. The CJI was unequivocal that his target was a specific category of individuals — those who had entered the legal profession, media, social media, and other fields by misrepresenting their qualifications. 'What I had specifically criticised were those who have entered professions like the Bar with the aid of fake and bogus degrees. Similar persons have sneaked into the media, social media, and other noble professions as well, and hence, they are like parasites,' the statement read.

CJI Defends India's Youth

Rejecting the controversy as 'totally baseless', CJI Kant went on to express his admiration for Indian youth. 'Not only am I proud of our present and future human resource, but every youth of India inspires me,' he said. He described the country's young people as 'the pillars of a developed India' and added: 'It is not an exaggeration to say that Indian youth have great regard and respect for me, and I too see them as the pillars of a developed India.'

Context: The Hearing That Sparked the Row

The controversy originated on Friday, 16 May 2025, during a hearing before a Supreme Court bench headed by CJI Kant and comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The bench was hearing a petition filed by an advocate who had challenged the Delhi High Court's refusal to consider him for senior designation. During oral observations — which carry no legal weight as formal judgments — the bench remarked that 'parasites' in society were seeking to attack institutions, and cautioned members of the Bar against associating with such elements. The CJI had also remarked that some 'youngsters like cockroaches', who failed to establish themselves professionally, ended up becoming 'media, social media, RTI activists, or other activists' and began attacking institutions. These remarks, made in the course of an oral exchange rather than as part of any written order, were widely reported and triggered sharp reactions across social media and civil society.

Why the Clarification Matters

Oral observations by senior judges during hearings are not binding precedent, but they carry significant public weight — particularly when made by the Chief Justice of India. The speed and scale of the backlash highlighted how judicial remarks, stripped of courtroom context, can acquire a different meaning in public discourse. Notably, the episode also underscores the tension between judicial candour in open court and the amplification effect of social media. The CJI's decision to issue a written clarification — rather than let the record speak — signals the seriousness with which the Supreme Court is treating the reputational dimension of the episode.

What Happens Next

No formal action has been reported in connection with the petition that prompted the original remarks. The clarification is likely to be placed on record, though it remains to be seen whether the controversy subsides or prompts further debate about judicial communication norms. Legal observers say the episode may renew calls for clearer guidelines on how oral observations by benches are reported and contextualised by media.