The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 13) directed a senior Delhi Police officer to remain present in court to explain the alleged assault on women journalists during the recent protests in Delhi. The case has been observed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant after Senior Advocate Indira Jaising mentioned a petition registered by the Network of Women in Media, India (NWMI). These women sought safeguards for journalists covering protests, especially women journalists.&nbsp;“We'd like some senior officer to remain present here and explain,” the CJI said, and added that the police would have to justify the accusation. Advocate Jaising notified the Court about the advance notice given which has been given to the Solicitor General. The CJI assured that the petition would be listed for hearing on Thursday along with the matter connected with the alleged police action. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan brought up a contempt petition filed by the Freedom Speech Collective, which alleges that police assaulted journalists in violation of the Court’s October 10 order directing that media personnel covering the protests not be harassed.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/from-jantar-mantar-to-lafayette-square-where-the-world-protests-and-how-close-it-gets-to-power-1791876038945">From Jantar Mantar to Lafayette Square: Where the world protests, and how close it gets to power</a><h3>Writ petition filed</h3>Separately, the NWMI (Network of Women in Media, India) has filed a writ petition seeking directions to safeguard journalists’ safety and dignity while covering protests and public events. The petition argues that the existing inquiry into alleged police excesses fails to specifically address concerns around journalists’ access to protest sites, their detention or forcible removal, and the protections needed for independent reporting and newsgathering. It calls on the Union of India to ensure that women journalists engaged in genuine newsgathering or reporting are not subjected to physical handling, intimidation, arbitrary detention or forcible removal simply because they were present at or near a protest, public gathering, crowd-control operation, or other event of public significance.

A contempt petition filed by the Freedom Speech Collective alleges that police assaulted journalists in violation of the Court’s October 10 order directing that media personnel covering the protests not be harassed.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 13) directed a senior Delhi Police officer to remain present in court to explain the alleged assault on women journalists during the recent protests in Delhi. The case has been observed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant after Senior Advocate Indira Jaising mentioned a petition registered by the Network of Women in Media, India (NWMI). These women sought safeguards for journalists covering protests, especially women journalists. “We'd like some senior officer to remain present here and explain,” the CJI said, and added that the police would have to justify the accusation. Advocate Jaising notified the Court about the advance notice given which has been given to the Solicitor General. The CJI assured that the petition would be listed for hearing on Thursday along with the matter connected with the alleged police action. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan brought up a contempt petition filed by the Freedom Speech Collective, which alleges that police assaulted journalists in violation of the Court’s October 10 order directing that media personnel covering the protests not be harassed. Also read: From Jantar Mantar to Lafayette Square: Where the world protests, and how close it gets to power Writ petition filed Separately, the NWMI (Network of Women in Media, India) has filed a writ petition seeking directions to safeguard journalists’ safety and dignity while covering protests and public events. The petition argues that the existing inquiry into alleged police excesses fails to specifically address concerns around journalists’ access to protest sites, their detention or forcible removal, and the protections needed for independent reporting and newsgathering. It calls on the Union of India to ensure that women journalists engaged in genuine newsgathering or reporting are not subjected to physical handling, intimidation, arbitrary detention or forcible removal simply because they were present at or near a protest, public gathering, crowd-control operation, or other event of public significance.

A contempt petition filed by the Freedom Speech Collective alleges that police assaulted journalists in violation of the Court’s October 10 order directing that media personnel covering the protests not be harassed.

SC adjourns hearing on Delhi protest, metro-train curbs pleas to October 15

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 12) said that it would take a "balanced approach" to examining the issue of firecracker use, clarifying that this would not come at the cost of hurting religious sentiments. During the hearing, the bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Surya Kant-led bench noted that there was still enough time to appeal to the public and consider restricting firecracker use to specific hours. The court is hearing a long-pending case concerning restrictions on firecrackers in Delhi-NCR during the winter months, when severe air pollution typically coincides with several festivals. "We will not hurt religious sentiments, but we will see what a balanced approach can be," the chief justice said. Emphasising the need for a practical approach, the court also highlighted the importance of public awareness and civic responsibility. The chief justice remarked that it would help if citizens and civil society stayed informed about the prevailing situation and understood their responsibilities accordingly. A lawyer argued during the proceedings that bursting firecrackers doesn't fall under the fundamental right to religious freedom. The lawyer said that worship is an expression of religious faith, but not bursting firecrackers. "Even God would be surprised," the lawyer remarked while making the argument. Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked why firecrackers are being linked to religion. "What do firecrackers have to do with religion?" he said.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-protests-court-should-not-be-dragged-into-political-activity-says-cji-surya-kant-1791791321414">Delhi protests: 'Court should not be dragged into political activity', says CJI Surya Kant</a><h3>Supreme Court observation on firecrackers</h3>Chief Justice Surya Kant previously observed that as soon as the Supreme Court decides to ban firecrackers in Delhi-NCR, people will start bursting them during daytime. Earlier, Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that as soon as the Supreme Court bans firecrackers in Delhi-NCR, people will start bursting them during daytime. The development unfolded amid the ongoing debate over the use of firecrackers in the national capital and the need to balance religious practices, keeping wider public concerns in mind. The court highlighted that there was time to explore a practical solution, including reducing the time frame during which the firecrackers could be used. During a similar hearing on September 30, a bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale signalled that it was leaning toward accepting a proposal to allow firecrackers, albeit with certain conditions attached. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati had requested an extension until October 15 to submit the Central Pollution Control Board’s (CPCB) report on barium-based firecrackers, noting that outdoor testing of these crackers had not yet been carried out. These proceedings stem from a 2015 case in which the Supreme Court laid down a series of directions governing the manufacture, sale and use of firecrackers, largely in response to the worsening air quality across Delhi and the surrounding region.

The development unfolded amid the ongoing debate over the use of firecrackers in the national capital and the need to balance religious practices while keeping wider public concerns in mind. 

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 12) said that it would take a "balanced approach" to examining the issue of firecracker use, clarifying that this would not come at the cost of hurting religious sentiments. During the hearing, the bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Surya Kant-led bench noted that there was still enough time to appeal to the public and consider restricting firecracker use to specific hours. The court is hearing a long-pending case concerning restrictions on firecrackers in Delhi-NCR during the winter months, when severe air pollution typically coincides with several festivals. "We will not hurt religious sentiments, but we will see what a balanced approach can be," the chief justice said. Emphasising the need for a practical approach, the court also highlighted the importance of public awareness and civic responsibility. The chief justice remarked that it would help if citizens and civil society stayed informed about the prevailing situation and understood their responsibilities accordingly. A lawyer argued during the proceedings that bursting firecrackers doesn't fall under the fundamental right to religious freedom. The lawyer said that worship is an expression of religious faith, but not bursting firecrackers. "Even God would be surprised," the lawyer remarked while making the argument. Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked why firecrackers are being linked to religion. "What do firecrackers have to do with religion?" he said. Also read: Delhi protests: 'Court should not be dragged into political activity', says CJI Surya Kant Supreme Court observation on firecrackers Chief Justice Surya Kant previously observed that as soon as the Supreme Court decides to ban firecrackers in Delhi-NCR, people will start bursting them during daytime. Earlier, Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that as soon as the Supreme Court bans firecrackers in Delhi-NCR, people will start bursting them during daytime. The development unfolded amid the ongoing debate over the use of firecrackers in the national capital and the need to balance religious practices, keeping wider public concerns in mind. The court highlighted that there was time to explore a practical solution, including reducing the time frame during which the firecrackers could be used. During a similar hearing on September 30, a bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale signalled that it was leaning toward accepting a proposal to allow firecrackers, albeit with certain conditions attached. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati had requested an extension until October 15 to submit the Central Pollution Control Board’s (CPCB) report on barium-based firecrackers, noting that outdoor testing of these crackers had not yet been carried out. These proceedings stem from a 2015 case in which the Supreme Court laid down a series of directions governing the manufacture, sale and use of firecrackers, largely in response to the worsening air quality across Delhi and the surrounding region.

The development unfolded amid the ongoing debate over the use of firecrackers in the national capital and the need to balance religious practices while keeping wider public concerns in mind.&nbsp;

Supreme Court to take ‘balanced approach’ on firecracker ban, says won’t hurt religious sentiments

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Sunday (Oct 12) declined requests from Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and MP Rahul Gandhi, who wanted to meet him Monday to apprise him about "vote chori" allegations amid protests in Delhi seeking CEC Gyanesh Kumar's resignation. In a letter responding to Rajya Sabha Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge and Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, the CJI listed the powers of the apex court and clarified that the matter is sub-judice and hence a meeting on the same issue would not be legal. The CJI cited the separation of powers doctrine and saying that the issues raised involved matters pending before the Court.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/short-videos/delhi-protest-delhi-braces-for-major-monday-showdown-amid-political-tensions-1791789618988">Delhi Protest: Delhi braces for major Monday showdown amid political tensions</a>&nbsp;The CJI said that the issues were already pending before the Supreme Court and that discussing them in a meeting would violate the separation of powers and judicial propriety. The CJI clarified that the court could not address these concerns through its administrative powers and advised the leaders to seek judicial intervention instead. He said they could file a petition physically on October 12 between 10:30 am and 4:30 pm or through e-filing, assuring them that it would be heard at the earliest opportunity. He also noted that related matters were scheduled for hearing on October 13. The CJI further said that the Supreme Court did not have administrative powers to deal with the issues highlighted in their letter. “However, in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 32 of our Constitution, along with other plenary powers, including that of judicial review, we are duty-bound to consider on the judicial side the gravamen of issues affecting the citizens of India,” he said. The CJI reiterated the Supreme Court’s commitment to protecting the fundamental rights of citizens and said they were entitled to seek enforcement of such rights “at all hours through the procedure known in law”. “It would thus be more appropriate on your part to invoke the judicial powers of the Supreme Court of India, instead of submitting a memorandum on the administrative side,” CJI Surya Kant said. He also pointed out that matters raising similar issues were scheduled for hearing before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 13, 2026. “If so advised, you may submit your petition on Monday, either physically at the Supreme Court of India, between 10:30 A.M. and 04:30 P.M., or alternatively by utilising the e-filing option, which permits filing at any time and on any day,” the CJI said.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/live-blog-opposition-march-live-updates-opposition-to-march-to-supreme-court-over-vote-chori-removal-of-cec-1791776783058">Anti-CEC protest LIVE updates here</a>&nbsp;Meanwhile, Rahul Gandhi addressed a press conference on Monday ahead of INDIA bloc's march to Supreme Court. He announced that the INDIA bloc respects the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India, adding that the suggestion to file a petition had provided a way forward. He said that the INDIA bloc will continue with its march to the Supreme Court – this time to file a petition – as suggested by the CJI.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined a meeting with Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge, saying the issues they raised were already pending before the Supreme Court. He advised them to file a petition, prompting Gandhi to announce that the INDIA bloc would proceed to the court.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Sunday (Oct 12) declined requests from Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and MP Rahul Gandhi, who wanted to meet him Monday to apprise him about "vote chori" allegations amid protests in Delhi seeking CEC Gyanesh Kumar's resignation. In a letter responding to Rajya Sabha Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge and Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, the CJI listed the powers of the apex court and clarified that the matter is sub-judice and hence a meeting on the same issue would not be legal. The CJI cited the separation of powers doctrine and saying that the issues raised involved matters pending before the Court. Also Read: Delhi Protest: Delhi braces for major Monday showdown amid political tensions The CJI said that the issues were already pending before the Supreme Court and that discussing them in a meeting would violate the separation of powers and judicial propriety. The CJI clarified that the court could not address these concerns through its administrative powers and advised the leaders to seek judicial intervention instead. He said they could file a petition physically on October 12 between 10:30 am and 4:30 pm or through e-filing, assuring them that it would be heard at the earliest opportunity. He also noted that related matters were scheduled for hearing on October 13. The CJI further said that the Supreme Court did not have administrative powers to deal with the issues highlighted in their letter. “However, in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 32 of our Constitution, along with other plenary powers, including that of judicial review, we are duty-bound to consider on the judicial side the gravamen of issues affecting the citizens of India,” he said. The CJI reiterated the Supreme Court’s commitment to protecting the fundamental rights of citizens and said they were entitled to seek enforcement of such rights “at all hours through the procedure known in law”. “It would thus be more appropriate on your part to invoke the judicial powers of the Supreme Court of India, instead of submitting a memorandum on the administrative side,” CJI Surya Kant said. He also pointed out that matters raising similar issues were scheduled for hearing before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 13, 2026. “If so advised, you may submit your petition on Monday, either physically at the Supreme Court of India, between 10:30 A.M. and 04:30 P.M., or alternatively by utilising the e-filing option, which permits filing at any time and on any day,” the CJI said. Anti-CEC protest LIVE updates here Meanwhile, Rahul Gandhi addressed a press conference on Monday ahead of INDIA bloc's march to Supreme Court. He announced that the INDIA bloc respects the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India, adding that the suggestion to file a petition had provided a way forward. He said that the INDIA bloc will continue with its march to the Supreme Court – this time to file a petition – as suggested by the CJI.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined a meeting with Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge, saying the issues they raised were already pending before the Supreme Court. He advised them to file a petition, prompting Gandhi to announce that the INDIA bloc would proceed to the court.

CJI cites separation of powers doctrine in declining meeting with Rahul Gandhi over CEC's removal

The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to examine an application seeking recall of its recent split verdict on whether challenges to the 2023 law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) should be referred to a larger Constitution bench.&nbsp;On September 23, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma gave split opinions on whether a batch of pleas challenging the validity of a 2023 law that excludes the Chief Justice of India (CJI) from the selection panel should be referred to a larger Constitution bench.&nbsp;Justice Datta held that the matter did not warrant a reference to a larger bench, while Justice Sharma favoured consideration by a five-judge Constitution Bench. Given the difference of opinion, the bench directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side for the constitution of a bench of appropriate strength.&nbsp;Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan mentioned the application before CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana on Wednesday, telling the bench that the plea sought recall of the September 23 judgment.“There is a split verdict on the Chief Election Commissioner issue. We have mentioned an application for recall of the judgment,” Sankaranarayanan said.&nbsp;CJI Surya Kant said the court would examine the application before deciding on it. “We will examine and then take a call,” he said.&nbsp;<h2>Plea cites a ‘reasonable’ apprehension of bias</h2>&nbsp;Sankaranarayanan clarified that the application was an interlocutory application (IA) seeking recall of the September 23 verdict passed by Justices Datta and Sharma. An IA is a formal application filed during the pendency of a case seeking a specific order or direction from the court.&nbsp;The recall application has been filed citing a reasonable apprehension of bias involving Justice Sharma. The application points to the fact that Justice Sharma’s son is a standing counsel for the Election Commission of India in the Madhya Pradesh High Court.&nbsp;<h2>Curative petition filed against split verdict by another party</h2>&nbsp;Sankaranarayanan also informed the bench that another party had filed a curative petition against the split verdict. “A curative petition has been filed. That, I think, will have to go in its own form. Whether it is maintainable, I don’t know. Ours is an IA seeking recall of the judgment. Curative often requires a review,” he said.The CJI noted that he had read about the curative petition.&nbsp;The recall application had earlier been mentioned before Justice Datta’s bench, but the matter was subsequently released, and Sankaranarayanan was asked to mention it before the CJI.&nbsp;The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister on the panel for selecting the CEC and ECs.Under the law, the selection committee now comprises the prime minister, the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the prime minister.

The application moved by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan points to the fact that Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s son is a standing counsel for the Election Commission of India in the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to examine an application seeking recall of its recent split verdict on whether challenges to the 2023 law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) should be referred to a larger Constitution bench. On September 23, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma gave split opinions on whether a batch of pleas challenging the validity of a 2023 law that excludes the Chief Justice of India (CJI) from the selection panel should be referred to a larger Constitution bench. Justice Datta held that the matter did not warrant a reference to a larger bench, while Justice Sharma favoured consideration by a five-judge Constitution Bench. Given the difference of opinion, the bench directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side for the constitution of a bench of appropriate strength. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan mentioned the application before CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana on Wednesday, telling the bench that the plea sought recall of the September 23 judgment. “There is a split verdict on the Chief Election Commissioner issue. We have mentioned an application for recall of the judgment,” Sankaranarayanan said. CJI Surya Kant said the court would examine the application before deciding on it. “We will examine and then take a call,” he said. Plea cites a ‘reasonable’ apprehension of bias Sankaranarayanan clarified that the application was an interlocutory application (IA) seeking recall of the September 23 verdict passed by Justices Datta and Sharma. An IA is a formal application filed during the pendency of a case seeking a specific order or direction from the court. The recall application has been filed citing a reasonable apprehension of bias involving Justice Sharma. The application points to the fact that Justice Sharma’s son is a standing counsel for the Election Commission of India in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Curative petition filed against split verdict by another party Sankaranarayanan also informed the bench that another party had filed a curative petition against the split verdict. “A curative petition has been filed. That, I think, will have to go in its own form. Whether it is maintainable, I don’t know. Ours is an IA seeking recall of the judgment. Curative often requires a review,” he said. The CJI noted that he had read about the curative petition. The recall application had earlier been mentioned before Justice Datta’s bench, but the matter was subsequently released, and Sankaranarayanan was asked to mention it before the CJI. The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister on the panel for selecting the CEC and ECs. Under the law, the selection committee now comprises the prime minister, the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the prime minister.

The application moved by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan points to the fact that Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s son is a standing counsel for the Election Commission of India in the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Supreme Court agrees to examine plea seeking recall of split verdict on CEC selection law

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Saturday urged BRICS nations to foster a culture of “healthy disagreement and deliberation”, suggesting that the bloc should transform into a “living Nalanda University”, a welcoming space that accommodates diverse legal systems and perspectives. Speaking to heads of delegations and delegates from BRICS member states and partner nations on the second day of the BRICS Chief Justices' Forum in New Delhi, the CJI emphasised the need for justice to be delivered in a timely and predictable manner. Invoking the legacy of the ancient Nalanda University, the CJI noted that it has welcomed students and researchers globally without discrimination or restrictions. He pointed out that Nalanda notably never required scholars to share a common legal or philosophical framework before admitting them. The CJI underscored that despite all of these, the University provided a space for disagreement and deliberation, adding that “BRICS should also be known as the living Nalanda University.”&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/sc-lawyer-files-complaint-against-student-activist-nishu-azad-father-over-derogatory-posts-on-hindu-deities-1788665605347">SC lawyer files complaint against student activist Nishu Azad, father over derogatory posts on Hindu deities</a><h3>Judicial heads and spokespersons from multiple countries</h3>Among those who spoke at the gathering were Luiz Edson Fachin(joining virtually), President of Brazil's Supreme Federal Court; Zhang Jun, Chief Justice of the People's Republic of China and President of the Supreme People's Court; Boulos Fahmy Iskander Boulos, Chief Justice of Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court; and Tewodros Meheret Kebede, Ethiopia's President of the Federal Supreme Court. Other judicial heads in attendance also include Sunarto, Indonesia's Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; Ayatollah Gholam Hossein Mohseni-Eje'I, Iran's Chief Justice of the Islamic Republic; Igor Krasnov, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation; and Mahube Betty Molemela, South Africa's President of the Supreme Court of Appeal. The forum also featured remarks from Datuk Seri Abu Bakar Bin Jais, President of Malaysia's Court of Appeal; Muntharee Ujjin, President of Thailand's Court of Appeal; Dr Flavian Zeija, Chief Justice of Uganda; and Malikakhon Kalandarova, Deputy Chairperson of Uzbekistan's Supreme Court.

The CJI noted that it has welcomed students and researchers globally without discrimination or restrictions. He pointed out that Nalanda notably never required scholars to share a common legal or philosophical framework before admitting them.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Saturday urged BRICS nations to foster a culture of “healthy disagreement and deliberation”, suggesting that the bloc should transform into a “living Nalanda University”, a welcoming space that accommodates diverse legal systems and perspectives. Speaking to heads of delegations and delegates from BRICS member states and partner nations on the second day of the BRICS Chief Justices' Forum in New Delhi, the CJI emphasised the need for justice to be delivered in a timely and predictable manner. Invoking the legacy of the ancient Nalanda University, the CJI noted that it has welcomed students and researchers globally without discrimination or restrictions. He pointed out that Nalanda notably never required scholars to share a common legal or philosophical framework before admitting them. The CJI underscored that despite all of these, the University provided a space for disagreement and deliberation, adding that “BRICS should also be known as the living Nalanda University.” Also read: SC lawyer files complaint against student activist Nishu Azad, father over derogatory posts on Hindu deities Judicial heads and spokespersons from multiple countries Among those who spoke at the gathering were Luiz Edson Fachin(joining virtually), President of Brazil's Supreme Federal Court; Zhang Jun, Chief Justice of the People's Republic of China and President of the Supreme People's Court; Boulos Fahmy Iskander Boulos, Chief Justice of Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court; and Tewodros Meheret Kebede, Ethiopia's President of the Federal Supreme Court. Other judicial heads in attendance also include Sunarto, Indonesia's Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; Ayatollah Gholam Hossein Mohseni-Eje'I, Iran's Chief Justice of the Islamic Republic; Igor Krasnov, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation; and Mahube Betty Molemela, South Africa's President of the Supreme Court of Appeal. The forum also featured remarks from Datuk Seri Abu Bakar Bin Jais, President of Malaysia's Court of Appeal; Muntharee Ujjin, President of Thailand's Court of Appeal; Dr Flavian Zeija, Chief Justice of Uganda; and Malikakhon Kalandarova, Deputy Chairperson of Uzbekistan's Supreme Court.

The CJI noted that it has welcomed students and researchers globally without discrimination or restrictions. He pointed out that Nalanda notably never required scholars to share a common legal or philosophical framework before admitting them.

'BRICS should be living Nalanda University': CJI at Chief Justices' Forum, urges to embrace 'healthy disagreement'

One of the premier law institutes in the country, the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru, has cancelled its 34th Annual Convocation scheduled for September 12 after a row over invitations to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra. The NLSIU has cancelled its 34th Annual Convocation citing “unavoidable circumstances”.&nbsp;The university informed graduating students about the decision through an official notice issued on Thursday, August 27. The university said that despite its “collective best efforts”, it would not be able to hold the annual convocation as planned.&nbsp;&nbsp;The institute had earlier communicated the proposed date of Sept 12 to graduating students on August 3.&nbsp;<h2>Graduating students to be conferred degrees in absentia</h2>&nbsp;The university said all graduating students would be conferred their degrees in absentia, subject to approval from its governing bodies.“All graduating students will be conferred their degrees in absentia after due approvals by the Governing Bodies. Students may elect to receive their certificates by courier or collect them at campus. The university will share a new form and the process with all graduating students to choose their preferred option later today.”&nbsp;The students had objected to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra attending their convocation. They also demanded an unconditional apology from BCI to the students and faculty members of the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) University of Law, Hyderabad.&nbsp;<h2>BCI recalled order freezing enrolment of entire 2026 NALSAR batch&nbsp;</h2>&nbsp;A campaign opposing the invite to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as chief guest in the university’s convocation by NALSAR graduating students had led to an uproar. The Bar Council of India chairman had then issued an order freezing the enrolment of the entire 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. It had directed all state bar councils not to enroll any student from the batch pending an inquiry into a campaign opposing CJI Surya Kant’s participation in the convocation.&nbsp;The BCI, however, withdrew the orders within hours, and its Chairman, Manan Kumar Mishra, said that the Council had “thoroughly discussed and deliberated” on his earlier letter and modified the direction imposing the enrolment ban.&nbsp;He said the Council was of a unanimous view that the vast majority of NALSAR’s 2026 graduating students had not intended to participate in any move to show disrespect.&nbsp;“Accordingly, the Council modifies the order of chairman with regard to the ban on the enrolment of the NALSAR students with the State Bar Councils. All the students will be entitled to get enrolled with the state bar councils of their choice,” the amended order said.&nbsp;Cockroach Janta Party co-convenor Saurav Das reacted to the convocation cancellation, saying he hoped the graduating batch would organise its own ceremony and invite a special guest to felicitate the students.&nbsp;“I hope the NLSIU graduating batch organises its own graduation ceremony and invites the most honourable guest to felicitate them. Do it the Gen-Z way!” he said.

The National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru, said its 34th Annual Convocation scheduled for September 12 stands cancelled and all graduating students would be conferred their degrees in absentia, subject to approval from its governing bodies.

One of the premier law institutes in the country, the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru, has cancelled its 34th Annual Convocation scheduled for September 12 after a row over invitations to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra. The NLSIU has cancelled its 34th Annual Convocation citing “unavoidable circumstances”. The university informed graduating students about the decision through an official notice issued on Thursday, August 27. The university said that despite its “collective best efforts”, it would not be able to hold the annual convocation as planned. The institute had earlier communicated the proposed date of Sept 12 to graduating students on August 3. Graduating students to be conferred degrees in absentia The university said all graduating students would be conferred their degrees in absentia, subject to approval from its governing bodies. “All graduating students will be conferred their degrees in absentia after due approvals by the Governing Bodies. Students may elect to receive their certificates by courier or collect them at campus. The university will share a new form and the process with all graduating students to choose their preferred option later today.” The students had objected to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra attending their convocation. They also demanded an unconditional apology from BCI to the students and faculty members of the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) University of Law, Hyderabad. BCI recalled order freezing enrolment of entire 2026 NALSAR batch A campaign opposing the invite to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as chief guest in the university’s convocation by NALSAR graduating students had led to an uproar. The Bar Council of India chairman had then issued an order freezing the enrolment of the entire 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. It had directed all state bar councils not to enroll any student from the batch pending an inquiry into a campaign opposing CJI Surya Kant’s participation in the convocation. The BCI, however, withdrew the orders within hours, and its Chairman, Manan Kumar Mishra, said that the Council had “thoroughly discussed and deliberated” on his earlier letter and modified the direction imposing the enrolment ban. He said the Council was of a unanimous view that the vast majority of NALSAR’s 2026 graduating students had not intended to participate in any move to show disrespect. “Accordingly, the Council modifies the order of chairman with regard to the ban on the enrolment of the NALSAR students with the State Bar Councils. All the students will be entitled to get enrolled with the state bar councils of their choice,” the amended order said. Cockroach Janta Party co-convenor Saurav Das reacted to the convocation cancellation, saying he hoped the graduating batch would organise its own ceremony and invite a special guest to felicitate the students. “I hope the NLSIU graduating batch organises its own graduation ceremony and invites the most honourable guest to felicitate them. Do it the Gen-Z way!” he said.

The National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru, said its 34th Annual Convocation scheduled for September 12 stands cancelled and all graduating students would be conferred their degrees in absentia, subject to approval from its governing bodies.

Top law institute NLSIU cancels convocation after row over invite to CJI Surya Kant

The Special Lok Adalat at the Supreme Court of India resolved over 400 cases on its first day, on August 21, as part of Samadhan Samaroh 2026, Supreme Court Action for Mediated Adjudication and Disputes Harmonisation Across the Nation. Launched Friday under the leadership of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, the Special Lok Adalat will run for two days, wrapping up on August 23. According to a Supreme Court press release, the initiative is designed to help parties reach amicable settlements in pending cases, giving litigants a chance to resolve disputes through discussion and mutual consent. "More than 600 cases were listed for settlement before 16 Special Lok Adalat Benches, each comprising two sitting Judges of the Supreme Court of India, along with senior advocates, Advocates-on-Record (AORs) and other advocates, with more than 400 cases being amicably settled. The benches facilitated dialogue between the parties and assisted them in exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement," it added.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/nia-court-rejects-bail-plea-of-pulwama-terror-case-accused-insha-jan-cites-ongoing-trial-1787374257492">NIA court rejects bail plea of Pulwama terror case accused Insha Jan, cites ongoing trial</a><h3>Dispute resolution methods</h3>The initiative includes matrimonial and property disputes, land acquisition and compensation cases, motor accident claims, tax matters, and service and labour disputes. Since the launch of the Samadhan Samaroh initiative on April 21, the cases had undergone a pre-settlement process with litigants and their counsel being involved to help the possibility of an amicable resolution. The Special Lok Adalat seeks to bolster consent-based dispute resolution and ease the strain of drawn-out litigation. The Supreme Court said the effort is part of its ongoing push to embed mediation and other alternative dispute resolution methods more firmly within the justice system. Samadhan Samaroh 2026 will wrap up on August 23, once the Special Lok Adalat proceedings are complete.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/canada-gurdwara-knife-attack-man-stabs-two-a-day-after-release-from-prison-1787372355832">Canada gurdwara knife attack: Man stabs two a day after release from prison</a>

The Supreme Court said the effort is part of its ongoing push to embed mediation and other alternative dispute resolution methods more firmly within the justice system.

The Special Lok Adalat at the Supreme Court of India resolved over 400 cases on its first day, on August 21, as part of Samadhan Samaroh 2026, Supreme Court Action for Mediated Adjudication and Disputes Harmonisation Across the Nation. Launched Friday under the leadership of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, the Special Lok Adalat will run for two days, wrapping up on August 23. According to a Supreme Court press release, the initiative is designed to help parties reach amicable settlements in pending cases, giving litigants a chance to resolve disputes through discussion and mutual consent. "More than 600 cases were listed for settlement before 16 Special Lok Adalat Benches, each comprising two sitting Judges of the Supreme Court of India, along with senior advocates, Advocates-on-Record (AORs) and other advocates, with more than 400 cases being amicably settled. The benches facilitated dialogue between the parties and assisted them in exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement," it added. Also read: NIA court rejects bail plea of Pulwama terror case accused Insha Jan, cites ongoing trial Dispute resolution methods The initiative includes matrimonial and property disputes, land acquisition and compensation cases, motor accident claims, tax matters, and service and labour disputes. Since the launch of the Samadhan Samaroh initiative on April 21, the cases had undergone a pre-settlement process with litigants and their counsel being involved to help the possibility of an amicable resolution. The Special Lok Adalat seeks to bolster consent-based dispute resolution and ease the strain of drawn-out litigation. The Supreme Court said the effort is part of its ongoing push to embed mediation and other alternative dispute resolution methods more firmly within the justice system. Samadhan Samaroh 2026 will wrap up on August 23, once the Special Lok Adalat proceedings are complete. Also read: Canada gurdwara knife attack: Man stabs two a day after release from prison

The Supreme Court said the effort is part of its ongoing push to embed mediation and other alternative dispute resolution methods more firmly within the justice system.

Supreme Court's Special Lok Adalat settles over 400 cases on day one of Samadhan Samaroh 2026

Bar Council of India (BCI) chairman Manan Kumar Mishra on Saturday expressed regret over the “concern and anguish” among a section of law students following the controversy surrounding NALSAR University of Law.&nbsp;The controversy began after the BCI directed state units not to register 2026 graduates of Hyderabad's NALSAR as advocates over their objection to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant attending their convocation. The BCI later withdrew the order.&nbsp;The directive triggered widespread criticism, with the CJI also rebuking the BCI on Friday. He said the events at NALSAR were “a dialogue between students and me”.&nbsp;Mishra, who is also a BJP Rajya Sabha member, said students' concerns must receive attention whenever they feel aggrieved.&nbsp;He said, “If anything connected with the present controversy, any of my words, or letter, has hurt the feelings of our law students, I sincerely regret and apologise for the same.”&nbsp;&nbsp;“An expression of regret is not a matter of prestige or ego”, and described it as “simply an acknowledgement that the feelings and concerns of our students matter,” he added.&nbsp;&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/jharkhand-protest-student-activist-mahto-alleges-assault-blocked-from-tiranga-yatra-1786811867028">Jharkhand protest: Student activist Mahto alleges assault, blocked from Tiranga Yatra</a><h2>The NALSAR row</h2>The controversy erupted on August 13 when Mishra directed state Bar Councils to prevent NALSAR's 2026 graduating class from enrolling as advocates.&nbsp;He also asked the university's Vice Chancellor to conduct an inquiry into students, faculty members and alumni who had opposed the CJI's proposed presence as chief guest at the convocation.&nbsp;A later modified letter allowed the graduates to enrol but retained the inquiry and alleged that a “handful of teachers and outsiders” had “instigated innocent students”.&nbsp;Following strong public criticism, Mishra announced on X that all proceedings against NALSAR had been cancelled.&nbsp;Earlier on Saturday, more than 700 students and alumni of the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru, expressed support for NALSAR students.&nbsp;The NLSIU statement demanded an unconditional apology from the BCI to NALSAR students and faculty over what it called an attempt to restrict their freedom of speech and expression.&nbsp;On the convocation issue, Mishra urged students to make their own choices without pressure. “No student should be compelled to attend, and no student should feel compelled to abstain,” he said,&nbsp;He also called for the dispute to be resolved through dialogue and mutual respect instead of taking on a “political or extraneous colour through outside influence”.&nbsp;Mishra urged institutions to respect students' independent thinking and provide space for “dialogue and moving forward without bitterness”.

BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra expressed regret and apologised to law students amid backlash over the withdrawn directive against NALSAR graduates, while calling for dialogue and respect for students' views.

Bar Council of India (BCI) chairman Manan Kumar Mishra on Saturday expressed regret over the “concern and anguish” among a section of law students following the controversy surrounding NALSAR University of Law. The controversy began after the BCI directed state units not to register 2026 graduates of Hyderabad's NALSAR as advocates over their objection to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant attending their convocation. The BCI later withdrew the order. The directive triggered widespread criticism, with the CJI also rebuking the BCI on Friday. He said the events at NALSAR were “a dialogue between students and me”. Mishra, who is also a BJP Rajya Sabha member, said students' concerns must receive attention whenever they feel aggrieved. He said, “If anything connected with the present controversy, any of my words, or letter, has hurt the feelings of our law students, I sincerely regret and apologise for the same.” “An expression of regret is not a matter of prestige or ego”, and described it as “simply an acknowledgement that the feelings and concerns of our students matter,” he added. Also Read: Jharkhand protest: Student activist Mahto alleges assault, blocked from Tiranga Yatra The NALSAR row The controversy erupted on August 13 when Mishra directed state Bar Councils to prevent NALSAR's 2026 graduating class from enrolling as advocates. He also asked the university's Vice Chancellor to conduct an inquiry into students, faculty members and alumni who had opposed the CJI's proposed presence as chief guest at the convocation. A later modified letter allowed the graduates to enrol but retained the inquiry and alleged that a “handful of teachers and outsiders” had “instigated innocent students”. Following strong public criticism, Mishra announced on X that all proceedings against NALSAR had been cancelled. Earlier on Saturday, more than 700 students and alumni of the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru, expressed support for NALSAR students. The NLSIU statement demanded an unconditional apology from the BCI to NALSAR students and faculty over what it called an attempt to restrict their freedom of speech and expression. On the convocation issue, Mishra urged students to make their own choices without pressure. “No student should be compelled to attend, and no student should feel compelled to abstain,” he said, He also called for the dispute to be resolved through dialogue and mutual respect instead of taking on a “political or extraneous colour through outside influence”. Mishra urged institutions to respect students' independent thinking and provide space for “dialogue and moving forward without bitterness”.

BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra expressed regret and apologised to law students amid backlash over the withdrawn directive against NALSAR graduates, while calling for dialogue and respect for students' views.

NALSAR row: BCI chairman Mishra apologises after backlash over advocate registration order

The Bar Council of India has withdrawn its controversial order barring the enrolment of NALSAR University of Law’s 2026 graduating batch with State Bar Councils.

The initial order came amid a controversy over a campaign by some students opposing Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s participation in the university’s convocation. Following widespread criticism, the BCI reconsidered the matter and said the vast majority of the students were innocent and should not suffer for the actions of others.

The revised order allows all NALSAR 2026 graduates to enrol with the State Bar Council of their choice. The BCI had initially sought an inquiry into those allegedly involved in the campaign, while the latest developments have also drawn the attention of the Supreme Court.

Nalsar Rolls Back Order, Barring Nalsar Graduates

Indian Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant has said on Thursday (Jul 23) that the top court will intervene if the Supreme Court metro station is not opened by afternoon. This came after the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) on shut down 16 metro stations around Jantar Mantar since 7.30 this morning but gave no reason of the closure. The CJI's reaction came after the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Vikas Singh flagged the difficulties faced by lawyers and court staff due to the closure of the metro station.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/pm-modi-breaks-silence-as-protest-demanding-edu-minister-resignation-grows-announces-big-decision-cjp-sonam-wangchuk-delhi-police-dharmendra-pradhan-1784778297392">'Nothing is more important than...': PM Modi announces BIG decision as Delhi student protest grows</a>&nbsp;In his plea, Singh said that lawyers and court staff using metro can be screened at the stations to avoid any issues but the station itself should not be closed. "The lawyers or registry staff can be screened at the metro. It is affecting us," Singh said. On this, the CJI said: “If by lunch time something does not happen to open it, I will intervene.” He assured the lawyers that he has directed judges not to pass adverse orders today in case lawyers are not able to appear due to the protests and logistical difficulties due to the same.&nbsp;This comes a day after the CJI refused to watch videos of alleged police brutality in New Delhi on July 20 as crowd gathered for Parliament march. The CJI dismissed a plea that urged the top court to take suo motu cognisance of the violation of fundamental rights and police brutality as well as an independent judicial inquiry into the matter. It also sought directions for registration of appropriate FIRs against the erring officials of the Delhi Police, and other concerned authorities. "Don't waste our time and yours," the CJI said, adding, "We don't want to watch any videos."&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/amid-calls-for-resignation-dharmendra-pradhan-s-1997-student-protest-against-paper-leak-surfaces-1784709415316">Dharmendra Pradhan's 1997 paper leak protest surfaces amid calls for resignation</a><h2>Lawyers’ bodies in Delhi and Mumbai condemn violence</h2>Meanwhile, lawyers’ bodies in Delhi and Mumbai have condemned police violence against students protesting in the two cities over exam paper leaks. A group of 650 lawyers in Delhi, including senior advocates Indira Jaising, Raju Ramachandran, Chander Uday Singh, Sanjay Hegde and former judges, senior advocates and lawyers such as Vrinda Grover, Prashant Bhushan&nbsp;called the police brutality “unacceptable”. Police brutality against protesting students is an attack on the principles of free expression, human dignity, and the right to dissent. We stand in solidarity with everyone who has been harmed, intimidated and traumatized,” the statement read.&nbsp;The Bombay Bar Association also expressed their horror on plolice brutality on students. “If these reports are accurate, the use of force against students exercising their constitutional rights is deeply disturbing and cannot be countenanced in a society governed by the rule of law,” their statement read.

CJI Surya Kant said he would intervene if the Supreme Court metro station was not reopened by lunchtime after 16 stations near Jantar Mantar were shut amid protests. He also assured lawyers that judges would not pass adverse orders if lawyers were unable to appear.

Indian Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant has said on Thursday (Jul 23) that the top court will intervene if the Supreme Court metro station is not opened by afternoon. This came after the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) on shut down 16 metro stations around Jantar Mantar since 7.30 this morning but gave no reason of the closure. The CJI's reaction came after the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Vikas Singh flagged the difficulties faced by lawyers and court staff due to the closure of the metro station. Also Read: 'Nothing is more important than...': PM Modi announces BIG decision as Delhi student protest grows In his plea, Singh said that lawyers and court staff using metro can be screened at the stations to avoid any issues but the station itself should not be closed. "The lawyers or registry staff can be screened at the metro. It is affecting us," Singh said. On this, the CJI said: “If by lunch time something does not happen to open it, I will intervene.” He assured the lawyers that he has directed judges not to pass adverse orders today in case lawyers are not able to appear due to the protests and logistical difficulties due to the same. This comes a day after the CJI refused to watch videos of alleged police brutality in New Delhi on July 20 as crowd gathered for Parliament march. The CJI dismissed a plea that urged the top court to take suo motu cognisance of the violation of fundamental rights and police brutality as well as an independent judicial inquiry into the matter. It also sought directions for registration of appropriate FIRs against the erring officials of the Delhi Police, and other concerned authorities. "Don't waste our time and yours," the CJI said, adding, "We don't want to watch any videos." Also Read: Dharmendra Pradhan's 1997 paper leak protest surfaces amid calls for resignation Lawyers’ bodies in Delhi and Mumbai condemn violence Meanwhile, lawyers’ bodies in Delhi and Mumbai have condemned police violence against students protesting in the two cities over exam paper leaks. A group of 650 lawyers in Delhi, including senior advocates Indira Jaising, Raju Ramachandran, Chander Uday Singh, Sanjay Hegde and former judges, senior advocates and lawyers such as Vrinda Grover, Prashant Bhushan called the police brutality “unacceptable”. Police brutality against protesting students is an attack on the principles of free expression, human dignity, and the right to dissent. We stand in solidarity with everyone who has been harmed, intimidated and traumatized,” the statement read. The Bombay Bar Association also expressed their horror on plolice brutality on students. “If these reports are accurate, the use of force against students exercising their constitutional rights is deeply disturbing and cannot be countenanced in a society governed by the rule of law,” their statement read.

CJI Surya Kant said he would intervene if the Supreme Court metro station was not reopened by lunchtime after 16 stations near Jantar Mantar were shut amid protests. He also assured lawyers that judges would not pass adverse orders if lawyers were unable to appear.

'Will intervene if...': CJI Surya Kant hears lawyer's plea over Delhi Metro station closures amid CJP student protest

Several students allegedly disrupted a lecture by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant at Birkbeck College, University of London on Friday (June 5). The CJI was delivering a lecture on ‘Artificial Intelligence and International Law’ and he was asked questions related to his recent “cockroach” remark as follow up question during his lecture. The student asking the question was interrupted by the moderator of the event. Several students, then protested and videos of the incident went viral. It was also shared by the social media handles of the Cockroach Janta Party.&nbsp;<h2>What was the question asked to CJI in London?</h2>According to clips of the exchange shared on X, a student said, “His Lordship made some very important points, I think, about the Indian track record of protecting democracy in the context of AI. We now hear from a number of legal observers within the country as well as internationally that there's a great deal of concern about growing hostility to dissent within India. And it does seem that this hostility is somewhat reflected in His Lordship's speech and it's very well publicised.” At this moment, she was interrupted by the moderator and she couldn't complete her question. "With all due respect, I'm so sorry, I would not be able to take up that question since the topic is concerning artificial intelligence and international law. So sorry. I'm extremely sorry, I'm extremely sorry. We'll have to cut it off," the moderator said.&nbsp;&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/cji-surya-kant-s-five-word-response-to-plea-seeking-probe-into-cockroach-janta-party-1779705886589">CJI Surya Kant's five-word response to plea seeking probe into Cockroach Janta Party</a>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><a href="https://x.com/hashtag/watch?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#watch</a> CJI Justice Surya Kant Faces Heated Q&amp;A in <a href="https://x.com/hashtag/London?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#London</a> Lecture Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant delivered a public lecture on &quot;Artificial Intelligence and International Law&quot; at Birkbeck University of London on June 4, 2026. During the Q&amp;A, an audience member… <a href="https://t.co/Z8y9qpYHdB">pic.twitter.com/Z8y9qpYHdB</a>&mdash; Thepagetoday (@thepagetody) <a href="https://x.com/thepagetody/status/2062849236832854168?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 5, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<h2>How India reacted?</h2>Reacting to the incident, The Indian High Commission in London said that a lively discussion was disrupted and such actions are unacceptable. “Such indecorous audience behavior is unacceptable and inconsistent with respectful engagement that should govern public discourse. Differences of opinion are a natural part of a democratic society. However, they must be expressed in a manner that is civil and respectful.”<h2>What the CJI said in the lecture?</h2>According to PTI, the CJI said that technology is neither inherently benevolent nor harmful, and that its impact depends on the legal, political and ethical frameworks within which societies choose to deploy it. He stated that the responsibility of law is neither to resist technological progress nor to surrender to it unquestioningly, but to ensure that technological power remains accountable to constitutional values, democratic legitimacy and human dignity. He also said artificial intelligence poses one of the most significant tests for international law in its modern evolution. “The central challenge before us is to ensure that, in an age of intelligent machines, humanity retains authorship of the principles by which it is governed. If international law can rise to that challenge, artificial intelligence may become not merely a technological revolution, but an opportunity to reaffirm the values that lie at the foundation of democratic civilisation itself.”&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/old-praise-new-problems-cockroach-janta-party-spokesperson-saurav-das-s-9-year-old-tweet-faces-scrutiny-1780657728854">Old praise, new problems: Cockroach Janta Party spokesperson Saurav Das's 9-year-old tweet faces scrutiny</a><h2>What is the ‘cockroach’ controversy?</h2>In May, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant's statement calling a section of unemployed youth as "cockroaches" and "parasites" during a court hearing, went viral, prompting the emergence of CJP satirical platform. The CJI later clarified that his observations were directed at individuals entering the legal profession through “fake and bogus degrees.” However, CJP expanded as youths joined the online movement and interpreted the CJI's remark as a taunt on unemployed youths of the country.

CJI Surya Kant's lecture on Artificial Intelligence and International Law at Birkbeck College, London, was briefly disrupted after an audience member attempted to question him on dissent in India. The Indian High Commission condemned the incident 

Several students allegedly disrupted a lecture by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant at Birkbeck College, University of London on Friday (June 5). The CJI was delivering a lecture on ‘Artificial Intelligence and International Law’ and he was asked questions related to his recent “cockroach” remark as follow up question during his lecture. The student asking the question was interrupted by the moderator of the event. Several students, then protested and videos of the incident went viral. It was also shared by the social media handles of the Cockroach Janta Party. What was the question asked to CJI in London? According to clips of the exchange shared on X, a student said, “His Lordship made some very important points, I think, about the Indian track record of protecting democracy in the context of AI. We now hear from a number of legal observers within the country as well as internationally that there's a great deal of concern about growing hostility to dissent within India. And it does seem that this hostility is somewhat reflected in His Lordship's speech and it's very well publicised.” At this moment, she was interrupted by the moderator and she couldn't complete her question. "With all due respect, I'm so sorry, I would not be able to take up that question since the topic is concerning artificial intelligence and international law. So sorry. I'm extremely sorry, I'm extremely sorry. We'll have to cut it off," the moderator said. Also Read: CJI Surya Kant's five-word response to plea seeking probe into Cockroach Janta Party

CJI Surya Kant's lecture on Artificial Intelligence and International Law at Birkbeck College, London, was briefly disrupted after an audience member attempted to question him on dissent in India. The Indian High Commission condemned the incident&nbsp;

Question on 'dissent' sparks tense moment at CJI Surya Kant's London lecture; video goes viral - What exactly happened

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Friday (May 15) delivered one of the judiciary’s sharpest public rebukes yet, using the startling phrase "youngsters like cockroaches" while expressing alarm over what he suggested was a growing ecosystem of fake degree holders, social media attackers and opportunistic activists targeting institutions. The unusually blunt remark came during a Supreme Court hearing on a plea saying the Delhi High Court has failed in implementing the Supreme Court's guidelines on the designation of senior advocates.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/media-house-deletes-story-after-pm-modi-rare-fact-checks-foreign-travel-tax-report-totally-false-cnbc-tv18-shut-down-global-travel-panic-1778899536032">Media house forced to delete story after PM Modi fact-checks misleading report on X: 'Totally false'</a><h2>Parasites, cockroaches and more: What did the CJI say?</h2>"There are already parasites of society who attack the system, and you want to join hands with them?" the CJI said, before escalating his criticism even further."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…"Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/who-is-padma-jaiswal-why-it-took-nearly-two-decades-to-dismiss-the-ias-officer-for-a-2007-08-offense-wion-explains-1778830736127">Who is Padma Jaiswal? Why it took nearly two decades to dismiss the IAS officer for a 2007-08 offense | WION Explains</a><h2>Fake law degrees under Supreme Court scanner</h2>CJI Surya Kant said he harboured "serious doubts" about the genuineness of many law degrees held by some Delhi-based advocates, particularly those active on social media platforms.The CJI said he was waiting for an appropriate case to order an investigation into the law degrees of many Delhi lawyers. He also suggested that the Central Bureau of Investigation should probe the issue.The bench of CJI Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi also referred to "thousands of fraudulent people wearing black robes". The CJI declined to entertain the plea and also criticised the language used online by a petitioner’s lawyer, warning that professional discipline was being undermined. "Let people understand the kind of language you are using on Facebook. I will show you what discipline in the profession means," the CJI said. The petitioner later chose to withdraw the plea.Notably, the lawyer had previously filed a writ petition challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision not to consider him for designation as a senior advocate. He subsequently filed a contempt petition, alleging non-compliance with an earlier Supreme Court order. However, the apex court had dismissed this contempt plea in December last year.

In one of the Supreme Court’s most blistering public remarks in recent memory, CJI Surya Kant warned of “parasites” attacking institutions. He then drew attention with his “cockroaches” comment about certain youngsters. Why prompted the statement?

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Friday (May 15) delivered one of the judiciary’s sharpest public rebukes yet, using the startling phrase "youngsters like cockroaches" while expressing alarm over what he suggested was a growing ecosystem of fake degree holders, social media attackers and opportunistic activists targeting institutions. The unusually blunt remark came during a Supreme Court hearing on a plea saying the Delhi High Court has failed in implementing the Supreme Court's guidelines on the designation of senior advocates. Also read | Media house forced to delete story after PM Modi fact-checks misleading report on X: 'Totally false' Parasites, cockroaches and more: What did the CJI say? "There are already parasites of society who attack the system, and you want to join hands with them?" the CJI said, before escalating his criticism even further. "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…" Also read | Who is Padma Jaiswal? Why it took nearly two decades to dismiss the IAS officer for a 2007-08 offense | WION Explains Fake law degrees under Supreme Court scanner CJI Surya Kant said he harboured "serious doubts" about the genuineness of many law degrees held by some Delhi-based advocates, particularly those active on social media platforms. The CJI said he was waiting for an appropriate case to order an investigation into the law degrees of many Delhi lawyers. He also suggested that the Central Bureau of Investigation should probe the issue. The bench of CJI Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi also referred to "thousands of fraudulent people wearing black robes". The CJI declined to entertain the plea and also criticised the language used online by a petitioner’s lawyer, warning that professional discipline was being undermined. "Let people understand the kind of language you are using on Facebook. I will show you what discipline in the profession means," the CJI said. The petitioner later chose to withdraw the plea. Notably, the lawyer had previously filed a writ petition challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision not to consider him for designation as a senior advocate. He subsequently filed a contempt petition, alleging non-compliance with an earlier Supreme Court order. However, the apex court had dismissed this contempt plea in December last year.

In one of the Supreme Court’s most blistering public remarks in recent memory, CJI Surya Kant warned of “parasites” attacking institutions. He then drew attention with his “cockroaches” comment about certain youngsters. Why prompted the statement?

'There are youngsters like cockroaches': What made CJI Surya Kant compare youngsters to pests? Supreme Court hearing turns explosive

The Supreme Court of India has refused to grant interim voting rights to those whose names were deleted amid the voter roll clean-up process, special intensive revision (SIR) and whose appeals are still awaited in front of the appellate tribunals.&nbsp;During the proceedings, Trinamool Congress leader Kalyan Banerjee stated that at least 1.6 million appeals have been filed, and they must be given a chance to vote in the two-phase assembly election in West Bengal, according to a report by news agency PTI.&nbsp;In response, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said, "That is entirely out of the question. If we were to permit this, then the voting rights of the individuals involved would have to be suspended."<h3>Millions of appeals in SIR exercise</h3>Justice Joymalya Bagchi confirmed that there are 3.4 million appeals in the SIR exercise, adding that a report submitted by the Calcutta High Court Chief Justice clearly indicates this data. The Election Commission of India has finalised the voter list in West Bengal, meaning no new names can be added before the election unless the Supreme Court of India issues a specific order, which it did not do in this case.&nbsp;To handle disputes, 19 appellate tribunals have been established in the Bangladesh-bordering state to review around 2.7 million cases involving deleted names. The Supreme Court’s direction came after 13 individuals challenged the removal of their names from the voter list. The court termed their plea “premature” and advised them to seek relief through the appellate tribunals instead.&nbsp;"Since the petitioners (Quaraisha Yeasmin and others) have already approached the appellate tribunals… in our considered view, the apprehensions expressed in the petition are premature. If the plea is allowed, then necessary consequences will follow," the bench said in its order, and added that it has not expressed any opinions on the merits of the plea. The petitioners also alleged that the Election Commission was removing names without due process and that appeals were not being addressed promptly.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/cm-mk-stalin-seeks-fresh-mandate-pitches-dravidian-model-2-0-in-tamil-nadu-1776018663180">CM MK Stalin seeks fresh mandate, pitches ‘Dravidian Model 2.0’ in Tamil Nadu</a>

Trinamool Congress leader Kalyan Banerjee said during the proceedings that at least 1.6 million appeals have been filed, and they must be given a chance to vote in the two-phase assembly election in West Bengal.

The Supreme Court of India has refused to grant interim voting rights to those whose names were deleted amid the voter roll clean-up process, special intensive revision (SIR) and whose appeals are still awaited in front of the appellate tribunals. During the proceedings, Trinamool Congress leader Kalyan Banerjee stated that at least 1.6 million appeals have been filed, and they must be given a chance to vote in the two-phase assembly election in West Bengal, according to a report by news agency PTI. In response, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said, "That is entirely out of the question. If we were to permit this, then the voting rights of the individuals involved would have to be suspended." Millions of appeals in SIR exercise Justice Joymalya Bagchi confirmed that there are 3.4 million appeals in the SIR exercise, adding that a report submitted by the Calcutta High Court Chief Justice clearly indicates this data. The Election Commission of India has finalised the voter list in West Bengal, meaning no new names can be added before the election unless the Supreme Court of India issues a specific order, which it did not do in this case. To handle disputes, 19 appellate tribunals have been established in the Bangladesh-bordering state to review around 2.7 million cases involving deleted names. The Supreme Court’s direction came after 13 individuals challenged the removal of their names from the voter list. The court termed their plea “premature” and advised them to seek relief through the appellate tribunals instead. "Since the petitioners (Quaraisha Yeasmin and others) have already approached the appellate tribunals… in our considered view, the apprehensions expressed in the petition are premature. If the plea is allowed, then necessary consequences will follow," the bench said in its order, and added that it has not expressed any opinions on the merits of the plea. The petitioners also alleged that the Election Commission was removing names without due process and that appeals were not being addressed promptly. Also read: CM MK Stalin seeks fresh mandate, pitches ‘Dravidian Model 2.0’ in Tamil Nadu

Trinamool Congress leader Kalyan Banerjee said during the proceedings that at least 1.6 million appeals have been filed, and they must be given a chance to vote in the two-phase assembly election in West Bengal.

Supreme Court of India rejects relief for deleted voters in West Bengal SIR process

cji-surya-kant

Cji Surya Kant, News on Cji Surya Kant, stories on Cji Surya Kant, articles on Cji Surya Kant, Cji Surya Kant stories at Wion, Cji Surya Kant news, Cji Surya Kant latest news

cji surya-kant

SC adjourns hearing on Delhi protest, metro-train curbs pleas to October 15

'We will not hurt religious sentiments': SC on firecracker bans in Delhi-NCR

CJI cites separation of powers doctrine in declining meeting with Rahul Gandhi

CJI agrees to examine plea seeking recall of split verdict on CEC selection law

'BRICS should be living Nalanda University': CJI at Chief Justices' Forum

Top law institute NLSIU cancels convocation after row over invite to CJI

Special Lok Adalat settles over 400 cases on day one of Samadhan Samaroh 2026

NALSAR row: BCI chief apologises after backlash over advocate registration order

Nalsar Rolls Back Order, Barring Nalsar Graduates

CJI Surya Kant says he will intervene in Delhi Metro station closures if...

CJI Surya Kant's London lecture disrupted by students: What exactly happened

Why did CJI Surya Kant call youngsters ‘cockroaches’? Hearing turns explosive

SC rejects relief for deleted voters in West Bengal SIR process