On May 15, 2026, a lawyer went to the Supreme Court of India, pleading to be made a ‘Senior Advocate’. While hearing the case, the judges – Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi felt that the lawyer was “chasing” too hard for getting the title, instead of waiting for the court to grant it on merit. Criticising the lawyer, the CJI expressed his anger on the broader issue of people using social media and activism to criticise institutions (including the judiciary). In that context, the CJI said, “There are already parasites in society who attack the system, and you want to join them? There are youngsters like cockroaches, who don’t get any employment or have any place in profession. Some of them become media, some of them become social media, RTI activists and other activists and they start attacking everyone.”
Raising a separate concern, the judges also said that some people may be entering the legal profession using fake law degrees and rued the fact that Bar Council might not act strictly because it depends on votes from these same lawyers. After this tense interaction, the lawyer apologised, withdrew his petition, and the court allowed him to do so, ending the case. Nobody, least of all, the Chief Justice of India thought these oral observations calling the youth of this country “cockroaches” and “parasites” would trigger a huge political storm and one of the biggest anti-establishment media debates in the country.
Shrinking Space for Dissent
The Chief Justice of India Surya Kant later clarified his controversial statement, saying, “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. What I had specifically criticised were those who have entered professions like the Bar (legal profession) 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. Not only am I proud of our present and future human resource, but every youth of India inspires me. 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.”
Despite the clarification, the CJI’s “cockroach-remarks” drew heavy criticism all around. In a stinging article for The Wire, former Delhi High Court judge, Rekha Sharma wrote, “It is neither constitutional nor dignified. Sobriety, dignity, politeness and empathy are some of the hallmarks of a judge. Calling unemployed youth cockroaches and parasites does not fit the bill. It is adding insult to injury. Today’s unemployed youth deserves empathy and not apathy. Unemployment is not of the youth’s making. They are its victims. The education system is failing them, jobs are scarce, and yet despite all odds, they are struggling to make ends meet.”
She ended her article quoting Mirza Ghalib – “Har ek baat pe kahteho tum, ki tukyahai, tumhinkaho, ki ye andaz-e-guftugukyahai”. The CJI remarks are also symptomatic of how dissent is perceived by those in the highest echelons of power. Public censure and open attempts to stifle voices critical of the government have been completely normalised. It is not easy for any individual or organisation to critique government policies without negative consequences.
Labels such as “Urban Naxals,”“anti-nationals,” and ”Andolanjeevis” are used in the mainstream political vocabulary against those who are vocal critics of official policies and not afraid to call a spade a spade. Political theorist Carl Schmitt described this phenomenon as the reduction of politics into a binary of “friend” and “enemy”. In such a framework, dissent is no longer disagreement; it is hostility.
Gen-Z anger and the Cockroach Janata Party
After the CJI’s remarks, suddenly out of the blue a viral, satirical online political movement exploded across social media by the name of Cockroach Janata Party (CJP). Started by former political strategist Abhijeet Dipkeas a Gen-Z digital protest against the “cockroach-remarks” by the judiciary, the Instagram page of the CJP amassed between 19 million and 20 million followers within roughly a week of its launch. For context, this (CJP’s Instagram following) is nearly double the ruling Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) (which sits at ~8.7 million followers) and ahead of the Indian National Congress (at ~13.3 million followers). Over 350,000 to 400,000 users have become CJP members officially by registering through the party’s Google forms, with an estimated 70% of participants aged between 19 and 25.
The first point in the CJP’s manifesto states – “If the CJP comes in power, no Chief Justice shall be granted a Rajya Sabha seat as a post-retirement reward.” Being a satirical website that wants to express the frustrations of the younger generation, the CJP’s membership criteria included being: unemployed, lazy, chronically online and the ability to rant professionally.
In a bid to discredit the unprecedented support to the CJP, the ruling dispensation and its IT cell army alleged that up to 77% of the CJP’s online traction was driven by bot traffic from Pakistan and Bangladesh. Immediately, the CJP released backend Instagram analytics proving that over 94% of their active audience is organically located in India, with minor fractions scattering across the UAE, US, and Canada.
Dissent and Power
In Islam, the word “khalifa” means vicegerent or representative of God on earth. The Qur’an says that the position of man on earth is that of His khalifa. It simply means that it is the duty of man to ensure that the will of God prevails in this world. It is indeed deliberate that the ruler of the Muslim world was known as khalifa. The four rightly guided caliphs of Islam were the embodiment of this requirement (by Islam) to be a ruler. All had a consultative body (Shoora) to guide them, in which members of the Shoora were fully authorised to dissent and disagree with the decision of the caliph. The caliph did not hold absolute authoritarian power; rather he was very much accountable before his people.
In fact, in the July 27, 1937, issue of his weekly journal Harijan, Gandhi advised Indian National Congress leaders who were just beginning to hold public office. He urged them to eschew luxury and remain deeply connected to the common people. To make his point, he held up Caliph Abu Bakr and Caliph Umar as supreme examples of servant leadership. The CJI’ remarks and the resulting political upheaval should make us reflect on the true role of the government and how we can restore a morally grounded leadership that cares for people not power and allowing dissent and criticism as a channel for improvement and self-correction.