Growing ‘attacks’on the judiciary by ‘parasites’, CJI Surya Kant says

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, while hearing a lawyer’s plea for appointment as senior advocate on Friday, May 15, 2026, reacted strongly to what he described as “increasing and unwarranted attacks on the judiciary by media, social media and RTI activists”.

“There are parasites in society attacking the system…they have no job and have no place in the profession. Some become media, some become social media, some become RTI activists and start attacking everyone,” the Chief Justice said.

The oral statements were made during the hearing of a plea filed by advocate Sanjay Dubey, seeking the Delhi High Court to initiate contempt proceedings on the alleged delay in implementation of the Supreme Court’s guidelines on appointment of senior lawyers.

The Bench, also comprising Joymalya Bagchi, rejected the plea, observing that the title of senior advocate was not a “status symbol” but a privilege “granted” by the court.

“Is the senior lawyer label an ornamental status symbol to be kept, or is it used to signify your participation in the justice system?” he asked.

The Chief Justice also referred to the language the plaintiff allegedly used on Facebook and warned that such behavior was incompatible with the discipline expected of members of the legal profession.

“The whole world could be fit to be senior [advocate]but at least you have no right to do so,” the Bench remarked.

The court also asked the petitioner if he wanted to “join hands” with those who attacked the institution.

‘Fake degrees’

During the hearing, the Board also expressed concern about the increasing number of lawyers allegedly possessing fake or suspicious degrees and underlined that the matter required investigation.

“Thousands of fraudulent people wearing black robes who have serious doubts about their rank. CBI needs to do something,” CJI Kant said.

The bench also observed that the issue of fake law degrees ideally requires an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. He added that Bar Association of India officials were unlikely to take any stringent action as they were “in collusion”.

Later, during the hearing, the plaintiff apologized to the court and asked for permission to withdraw his defense. The court ultimately allowed the petition to be withdrawn.