The quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is often cited as an encapsulation of pluralism, freedom of expression, and an open attitude towards dissenting views. A statement echoing this sentiment was made recently by Justice Surya Kant of the Supreme Court of India. In no uncertain terms, he criticised the Bar Council of India (BCI), which had stepped in to defend and support him, and insisted that those who had criticised him should be allowed the right to do so. To put it in perspective, during a Supreme Court hearing on May 15, certain remarks made by Chief Justice Surya Kant had sparked considerable controversy. His comment that some young people, “like cockroaches,” do no real work but attack everyone while posing as media, social media or Right to Information activists, is believed to have contributed to the emergence of the phenomenon known as the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). The movement has drawn attention in Indian cities, including the national capital, in recent months. Against the backdrop of these remarks, which triggered strong resentment among young people, around 450 students and alumni of Hyderabad’s prominent National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) demanded that the Chief Justice should not be invited as the chief guest for their institution’s convocation this year. In what was seen as a response to the demand, Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra directed that NALSAR graduates from the 2026 batch should not be enrolled as advocates until further notice. The BCI also wrote to the university seeking details about the students who had participated in the protest. The strong words used by Chief Justice Surya Kant in criticising this demand are particularly significant against the backdrop of a broader political climate in which dissenting voices are often being suppressed.
What is more significant is that it is the Chief Justice, against whom the students had made this defiant demand, who not only disapproved of the BCI’s action but also questioned its authority to proceed against the protesting students. During a hearing last Friday concerning the BCI’s actions, the Chief Justice asked what right the Bar Council had to intervene between him and the students. He said the matter was one between him and the students and that the BCI had no role in it, and asked why it had chosen to interfere unnecessarily. The court also directed that no action should be taken against the NALSAR students and asked the BCI to explain its actions within two weeks. BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, who is also a BJP Member of Parliament, had apparently sought action against the protesting students from the NALSAR Vice-Chancellor in what appeared to be an attempt to support the Chief Justice. He also sought from the university details of the students who had protested. However, amid widespread criticism in the public domain, the letter was withdrawn within hours. The request seeking information about the protesters, however, was not withdrawn immediately; the BCI withdrew the communication in its entirety only on Friday. Despite the withdrawal of the letter, the Supreme Court did not refrain from criticising the BCI’s conduct.
The court’s response was broadly in line with the argument made by the students’ lawyer, K. Parameswaran, who stated that treating the students’ demand regarding the university’s internal action as misconduct amounted to an infringement of freedom of expression in what they were convinced was right and the students’ right to organise. Those who fear that the towers they have built of image and artificial prestige around themselves may collapse at the first sign of criticism are unlikely to tolerate dissent. But those who are convinced of their professional and moral standing need not fear meaningful criticism, however unpleasant or uncomfortable it may be. In contemporary India, where even the media, which should champion freedom of expression, often colludes in state-backed efforts to shrink the space for dissent, and where criticism of powerful figures invites legal action or retribution, it offers significant hope for democracy when a judge declares that such criticism poses no threat to him. In an atmosphere where the judiciary itself often puts its stamp of approval on the divisive transgressions of the ruling establishment, the public will certainly pay close attention to such voices emerging from the highest rung of the judiciary.