Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant has clarified that the Supreme Court never refused to entertain petitions relating to the ongoing student protests over alleged examination irregularities, asserting that the apex court remains accessible to every citizen and is committed to protecting fundamental rights and addressing genuine grievances in accordance with the Constitution, the rule of law and the procedure established by law.
The clarification came on Friday amid nationwide protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) over the alleged NEET paper leak and police action during the July 20 “Chalo Sansad” march in Delhi. Responding to criticism directed at the top court of the country after an oral mentioning on July 22, the CJI said reports suggesting that the Court had declined to hear the matter were factually incorrect because no writ petition had been instituted before the Court at that stage.
The CJI explained that before every court sitting, the Supreme Court Registry briefs the Chief Justice on matters in which urgent listing has been sought. On the day the controversy arose, he had specifically enquired whether any petition concerning the student protests had been filed and was informed that none had been instituted. Despite this, a lawyer sought urgent mentioning on the basis of a one-page representation addressed to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court instead of filing a properly instituted writ petition under the Supreme Court rules.
He stated that a mere representation could not be treated as a judicial proceeding or a writ petition and that the Secretary General is not the competent authority to convert such communications into judicial proceedings. According to the CJI, advocates practising before the Supreme Court are expected to invoke the Court’s writ jurisdiction by filing a properly drafted petition before seeking urgent judicial intervention through oral mentioning. He added that while sitting in court, he could not invite litigation by directing a lawyer to file a petition, but the Court would never refuse to hear any matter that is instituted in accordance with law.
Emphasising that access to justice remains a foundational principle of the constitutional justice delivery system, the CJI assured citizens, particularly the youth, that if any injustice has been caused to any person, the Supreme Court will examine the grievance within the bounds of law and the prescribed judicial procedure and make every effort to secure justice wherever warranted. He reiterated that the doors of the Supreme Court remain open to every citizen and that the judiciary is always prepared to address the problems and suffering of the people through due process of law.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations relating to police action against protesters, the CJI maintained that it was incorrect to suggest that the Supreme Court had earlier refused to hear the issue. He explained that once properly instituted petitions were subsequently filed, assigned diary numbers and orally mentioned before the Bench, the Court immediately agreed to list them for hearing. The petitions, alleging excessive use of force by police and security personnel against student protesters at Jantar Mantar, have now been directed to be listed before the appropriate Bench on Monday.
Earlier on Friday, while presiding over a Bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, the CJI had also clarified in open court that no writ petition had been filed before the Supreme Court until Friday morning and criticised sections of the media for what he described as reckless and misleading reporting that the Court had refused to list the matter. He stated that the reports created an incorrect public impression because only a representation had been mentioned and not a formally instituted petition.
The CJI further expressed concern over the manner in which oral observations made during court mentionings are reported. He explained that mentionings are essentially administrative or semi-administrative exercises undertaken by the Chief Justice to determine whether a matter deserves urgent listing and are not judicial adjudications on the merits of a case. He suggested that a formal protocol should be evolved for reporting oral mentionings, observing that either the media should receive proper official briefings or such administrative exchanges should not be reported as judicial pronouncements. He stressed that selective reporting of isolated oral observations without context risks misleading the public and undermining confidence in the judiciary.
Clarifying another controversy, the CJI said his earlier observation that the Court did not have time to watch videos was taken out of context and related solely to the procedural issue before the Court rather than the merits of the student protests. He explained that the Court could consider evidence only after a properly instituted petition was placed before it and that judicial proceedings cannot be initiated merely on the basis of a letter representation or video recordings.
The Chief Justice also addressed criticism surrounding his earlier “cockroach” remark, clarifying that it was never directed at students or the country’s youth. He explained that the observation arose during a discussion concerning persons who had allegedly entered the legal profession using fake or unrecognised law degrees. Referring to reports that thousands of advocates were practising on the strength of allegedly invalid degrees, he said the remark was made only in that context and had subsequently been quoted out of context, resulting in an erroneous perception that it targeted young protesters.
The CJI also clarified that the Supreme Court’s recent interim directions restraining unauthorised recording, dissemination and commercial exploitation of audio and video recordings of court proceedings do not impose any restriction on bona fide news reporting. He explained that the directions are aimed primarily at preventing distortion and selective circulation of judicial proceedings on social media and other platforms, while legitimate reporting of court proceedings by recognised media organisations remains unaffected.
Calling for greater responsibility in legal journalism, the CJI observed that court proceedings should not be treated merely as material for generating sensational headlines. He said judicial reporting should focus on substantive legal developments, jurisprudential evolution, constitutional issues and decisions affecting public interest and the rights of disadvantaged sections of society, rather than isolated oral remarks taken out of context. According to the CJI, such responsible reporting would strengthen public confidence in the administration of justice and preserve the institutional integrity and credibility of the Indian judiciary.
The post Supreme Court open to every citizen, committed to hearing all genuine grievances in accordance with law: CJI Surya Kant appeared first on India Legal.