Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Friday delivered sharp remarks about what he described as growing attacks on the judiciary by opportunistic elements and questioned the genuineness of several law degrees held by practising lawyers. His observations came during the hearing of a petition challenging the Delhi High Court’s process for designating senior advocates, according to a Live Law report.
Comments on unemployed youngsters and social media
Addressing the courtroom, the CJI expressed concern that unemployed young law graduates were turning to social media, Right to Information (RTI) activism and other public platforms instead of practising law. “There are already parasites of society who attack the system, and you want to join hands with them?” he asked. As per Live Law and ANI report, he added, “There are youngsters like cockroaches, who don’t get any employment and don’t have a place in a profession. Some of them become media, some of them become social media, some of them become RTI activists, some of them become other activists and they start attacking everyone and you people file contempt petitions.”
Concerns over ‘fake law degrees’
The bench- comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi- voiced serious doubts about the authenticity of degrees held by several Delhi advocates who are active on social media. The CJI said he was “waiting for an appropriate case” to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe allegations of fraudulent law degrees. “I have serious doubts about the genuineness of their law degrees and the things they are posting on Facebook, YouTube, etc., do they think we are not watching?” he remarked.
Chief Justice Surya Kant warned of elements he called “parasites” that attack the judicial system and urged lawyers not to ally with them. He criticised unemployed young law graduates who turn to social media, RTI activism and other platforms, saying, “There are youngsters like cockroaches, who don’t get any employment and don’t have a place in a profession.” The CJI also voiced doubts about the authenticity of some advocates’ qualifications and their online conduct: “I have serious doubts about the genuineness of their law degrees…the things they are posting on Facebook, YouTube, etc., do they think we are not watching?”
Bench’s observations and courtroom exchange
The bench observed there were “thousands of fraudulent people wearing black robes with serious doubts about their degrees.” The court was hearing a plea that alleged the Delhi High Court had not properly implemented Supreme Court (SC) guidelines on designation of senior advocates. During proceedings, the bench also took objection to the language used by the petitioner’s counsel, Sanjay Dubey, on social media. “Let people understand the kind of language you are using on Facebook. I will show you what discipline in the profession means,” CJI Surya Kant told the lawyer.
Questioning the value of senior designation
Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned whether the designation of senior advocate was being sought as a mere status symbol rather than as recognition of sustained contribution to the justice delivery system. The bench’s comments underscored concerns about professional standards and the responsibilities that accompany senior titles in the bar.
The petitioner subsequently withdrew his plea. The case had originally challenged the Delhi High Court’s refusal to consider the lawyer for designation as a senior advocate. The same lawyer had earlier moved a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a Supreme Court direction; that contempt plea was dismissed by the apex court in December of the previous year.
Calls for investigation and implications
By urging a CBI probe into questionable law degrees, the CJI signalled willingness to escalate scrutiny when appropriate cases come before the court. His remarks link wider anxieties about professional integrity, the role of social media in public criticism and the potential presence of unqualified individuals in the legal profession.
The bench’s strong language is likely to provoke reactions from bar bodies, legal educators and civil society. Formal inquiries, bar association reviews or criminal probes could follow if sufficient material is produced in the right procedural forum. For now, the apex court has flagged the issue and indicated that it expects robust action when a proper petition or case is filed.