While hearing a contempt petition in the Supreme Court – filed by an advocate alleging violation of Supreme Court’s guidelines by the Delhi high court in the matter of designation of senior advocates – Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant is reported to have orally observed, “…there are already parasites who attack the system, and you want to join them. There are youngsters like cockroaches who do not get any employment…some of them become media, some become social media, some RTI activists and they start attacking everyone.”The CJI also reportedly went on to say that he had serious doubts about the genuineness of the law degrees of many advocates in Delhi. The CJI added that he was waiting for an appropriate case to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to enquire into the genuineness of these as the Bar Council of India would not do so for many reasons. The aforesaid, Mr. Chief Justice, with the greatest of respect to you, is not language suitable for the court, much less for the Supreme Court, and still less of a person who adorns the high office of the third pillar of our democracy, namely, the judiciary. It is neither constitutional nor dignified. Sobriety, dignity, politeness and empathy are some of the hallmarks of a judge. Calling unemployed youth cockroaches and parasites does not fit the bill. It is adding insult to injury. Today’s unemployed youth deserves empathy and not apathy. Unemployment is not of the youth’s making. They are its victims. The education system is failing them, jobs are scarce, and yet despite all odds, they are struggling to make ends meet. The more ambitious among them appear in competitive examinations, some of them take private tuitions at a huge expense. And then the paper gets leaked, resulting in the cancellation of the examination on which they had pinned their hopes. Some drop out in frustration, others become overage, and some even die of suicide. And yet, they are called parasites and cockroaches.The CJI is reported to have said that some unemployed youth enter the media or social media, while others become RTI activists, and start attacking everyone. It is this so-called attack by them which seems to have upset the Chief Justice, and hence his outburst against them. This, despite the matter before him being of a lawyer who was aggrieved by his non-designation as a senior. The observations, coming as they do from a Chief Justice, do not augur well for democracy. Speaking truth to power and questioning it is the job of the media. It is its constitutional right and as a constitutional court, the Supreme Court has been entrusted with the power to protect that right. The RTI activists who seek information from the state derive their right from the Right to Information Act. Thus they cannot be seen as attacking the system. The Supreme Court enjoys vast powers to dismiss frivolous petitions and deal with such persons who misuse the right conferred upon them. But tarring everyone with the same brush is demoralising to those who are doing a service to the society at large. The Supreme Court’s outrage against advocates practicing on fake degrees is understandable. But far more serious cases have come before the Supreme Court recently in which the citizen saw no outrage from the court. For instance, it was not outraged when a member of parliament held a former CJI responsible for all the civil wars happening in India. It was not outraged when a shoe was thrown on a former CJI, while he was holding his court. It was not outraged when a minister in Madhya Pradesh called Colonel Sophia the sister of terrorists. It is not outraged when appeals are not heard for years, and when heard are not decided for long. It is not outraged when it itself does not follow the rule of bail and not jail. Why this selective outrage? Recently, the Chief Justice has come down heavily on environmentalists. He reportedly said ‘show us even a single project in this country where these so-called environmentalists have said that we welcome the project’. We need to remember that not very long ago, it was because of the environmentalists that the Supreme Court had to suspend its own order on Aravalli Hills which, if not stayed, would have played havoc with ecological balance, besides encouraging mining activities and land grabs. We also need to remember that had there been no M.C. Mehta there would have been no CNG vehicles in Delhi, and the city would have become a gas chamber. Speaking on trade unions, the Chief Justice reportedly said that aggressive trade unionism and flag bearing unions were largely responsible for stopping industrial growth in the country. Again, during a hearing on a controversy over a You-tube show, India’s Got Latent, the Chief Justice reportedly remarked that “some people are writing articles in his defence in the name of ‘Freedom of Speech’, but we know how to deal with them also.” With respect, all these observations tend to betray a mindset which would not brook any dissent or questioning. Besides, it smacks of hubris. Of course, the CJI has clarified his remarks on parasites, but is silent on cockroaches. In any case, the damage has already been done. There was massive outrage on social media. He has clarified that his criticism was directed strictly at individuals possessing fake degree who enter professional fields but not at India’s youth. Even so, words like cockroaches and parasites are demeaning. The CJI is not a single individual. With his elevation to the judiciary, he has turned into an institution. When he speaks, he speaks on behalf of the Constitution. People look up to him as a role model and any statement from him is intently heard and followed. Therefore, the language is as important as its content and intent. In this context, one is reminded of Ghalib’s Urdu couplet – “Har ek baat pe kahte ho tum ki tu kya hai, tumhin kaho ki ye andaz-e-guftugu kya hai”.Rekha Sharma is a former judge of the Delhi high court.