Words, Restraint and Judicial Responsibility

Judicial words carry weight, so does restraint.

Advocate Y Babji

During a Supreme Court hearing on May 15, 2026, Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant made oral observations regarding unemployed individuals, social media activism and people misusing the legal system. 

His exact oral remarks, which sparked widespread outrage and debate, were: "There are already parasites of society who attack the system and you want to join hands with them? There are youngsters like cockroaches, who don't get any employment or have any place in [the] profession. Some of them become media, some of them become social media, some of them become RTI activists... and they start attacking everyone."

The controversy surrounding Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s remarks about RTI activists, journalists and social media users is more than a passing courtroom episode. The public reaction arose not only from the language used, but also from the perception that democratic voices were being spoken of dismissively.

At the same time, it is equally important to recognize that judges are also human beings. They function under immense pressure, dealing daily with excessive litigation, misuse of legal processes, online criticism and social tensions that increasingly spill into courtrooms. At times, judges express their anguish and frustration over what they perceive as the decline of standards in public life. Such remarks are often made spontaneously during hearings and may fall within the category of obiter dictum i.e. observations that are not central to the final legal ruling, but are personal or contextual comments made by the court.

However, even obiter dicta from constitutional courts carry enormous public significance because judicial observations influence public discourse and institutional credibility. Judges certainly have the right to speak candidly about problems affecting society, but the authority of the judiciary depends not only on the correctness of its judgments, but also on the balance, restraint and dignity with which it communicates. When broad or harsh remarks are directed at entire groups, the language itself can overshadow the original concern.

The Chief Justice later clarified that his comments were aimed at individuals who entered professions through fake or bogus degrees and not at India’s youth or genuine public-interest activists. The clarification was necessary and welcome. Yet, in public life, especially in the judiciary, people often remember the original remark more strongly than the explanation that follows.

This episode should therefore encourage a wider discussion about institutional communication and democratic accountability. The Right to Information regime has emerged as one of the most powerful tools available to the common citizen in independent India. RTI transformed governance by challenging the culture of secrecy inherited from the colonial era, where official information was treated as the property of the state rather than the right of the people. Without RTI activists and whistle-blowers, much of the official secrecy that survived from the British administrative legacy would have remained untouched.

It is true that some individuals may misuse the RTI mechanism or pursue publicity-driven activism. But isolated misuse cannot diminish the larger democratic value of transparency. Genuine whistle-blowers and public-interest activists perform an essential role in exposing corruption, maladministration and abuse of power. Similarly, journalists continue to act as an important bridge between institutions and the public by questioning authority and promoting accountability. Democracies become stronger not when criticism is silenced, but when institutions are mature enough to engage with scrutiny constructively.

The larger lesson is simple. Judges must remain honest and firm and society must also appreciate the pressures under which they function. But judicial strength ultimately lies in measured expression. Institutions do not become weaker by choosing their words carefully; they become stronger because public trust grows when authority is exercised with restraint, wisdom and composure.