New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India issued a blistering critique on Friday during a hearing regarding the designation of senior advocates, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant likening certain segments of unemployed youth to “cockroaches” who disrupt the legal and social system. Presiding over a bench alongside Justice Joymalya Bagchi, the Chief Justice expressed deep frustration with individuals who, upon failing to find traditional employment or a stable place in their profession, pivot toward roles in media, social media, or RTI activism specifically to target institutional structures. The bench noted that these “parasites of society” often engage in orchestrated attacks against the system, a trend the court viewed with significant alarm.
The stern observations arose while the court was considering a petition from an advocate seeking the prestigious status of Senior Advocate. The bench questioned the petitioner’s professional conduct and motives, suggesting that such a distinction is a conferred honour rather than a target to be aggressively pursued through litigation. In an unusually candid exchange, the Chief Justice remarked that even if a High Court were to grant the petitioner senior status, the Supreme Court might be inclined to set it aside given the petitioner’s behaviour and online presence. The court further noted that the petitioner appeared to have little other active litigation, questioning whether the quest for the “senior” title had become an ornamental obsession rather than a professional milestone.
Beyond the specific petition, the hearing touched upon broader systemic concerns regarding the integrity of the legal profession in the national capital. Chief Justice Kant indicated that he is considering directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to verify the law degrees of numerous advocates in Delhi, particularly those practising in lower courts. The court alleged that thousands of individuals may be practising with fraudulent credentials and expressed disappointment in the Bar Council of India, suggesting the regulatory body remains paralyzed by internal vote politics and is in absolute collusion with the elements it is meant to oversee. Following the court’s intense scrutiny and castigation, the petitioner ultimately offered a profuse apology and was permitted to withdraw his plea.
