Supreme Court notice to Centre, CBI on CJP’s activities, monetisation of judges’ remarks in court

Published 11 August 2026 · local

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 11, 2026) sought a response from the various Central Ministries on a petition seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 11, 2026) sought a response from the various Central Ministries on a petition seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation probe into the “activities” of a “digital-political formation”, Cockroach Janta Party, and the commercial exploitation, trademark appropriation and monetised circulation of oral remarks made in court proceedings. Also Read | ‘Don’t waste our time’: Kant declines to take cognisance of police violence during CJP’s Parliament march A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant issued notice to a petition filed by a Supreme Court advocate, Raja Choudhary, who has arraigned the Union government, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Bar Council of India and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as respondent in the case. The CJP protests over the NEET-UG paper leaks and the Delhi Police crackdown on agitating students and youths in the national capital using pellet guns on July 20 has since then snowballed into a political flashpoint which till now the Home Minister has not addressed in the Parliament’s ongoing Monsoon Session despite Opposition pressure.

Also Read | Listen to Gen Z, don’t repress them, says Supreme Court Choudhary, represented by advocate Rajesh Singh Chouhan, said on Tuesday (August 11, 2026) that the petition was not an attack on fair criticism, democratic dissent, satire, and constitutionally protected free speech, but a challenge to organised commercial exploitation and distortion of solemn court hearings into a “viral spectacle” online. The virtual court hearing mechanism was muted. The media persons present in the Supreme Court heard the proceedings by entering the court room and watching it physically. He said judicial hearings and exchanges between judges and lawyers metamorphose into clipped fragments, outrage algorithms, trolling cultures, meme warfare, emotional mobilisation, and monetised virality. “Isolated fragments of oral proceedings are selectively clipped, meme-ified, mimicked, commercially circulated, and transformed into viral digital content detached from constitutional and procedural context,” the petition said. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s reported references to “cockroach” in reference to fake law degree holders during the hearing of a writ petition on May 15 spawned a public furore and a viral online platform, ‘Cockroach Janta Party’ (CJP).

The Chief Justice had clarified the next day in a statement that he was misquoted by sections of the media and had the greatest concern and respect for the youths of the country. The petition said that vernacular, culturally direct and non-elite modes of institutional speech associated with rural and non-metropolitan traditions are increasingly subjected to disproportionate ridicule within elite digital ecosystems. It argued that the spontaneous use of metaphorical expressions like ‘cockroach’ only reflected institutional frustration and procedural anxiety at the deterioration of legal professionals’ standards. The petition has sought a CBI probe into the proliferation of fake law degrees across the country. Choudhary asserted that metaphorical references involving animals, insects, vermin, creatures or symbolic imagery have historically existed within literature, jurisprudence, constitutional discourse, political theory and legal philosophy. Such expressions, he said, were recognised tools for expressing institutional anxiety, bureaucratic alienation, procedural disorder, collapse of communication between individuals and authority systems and symbolic commentary upon social behaviour.