New Delhi- The following open letter is being published verbatim as submitted to the office of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and released to the press by Citizens for Democracy (CFD). The letter responds to oral observations made by the CJI on May 15, during a hearing concerning a lawyer’s senior designation petition remarks in which the CJI reportedly likened certain young RTI activists, media persons, and environmentalists to “cockroaches” and “parasites.”

Despite a clarification issued the next day, the CFD argues that the original comments betray a deep-seated judicial prejudice against civic activism. The letter draws historical parallels, invokes the judiciary’s own standards against preaching from the bench, and concludes with a stark choice for the apex court: stand with the Constitution and the “cockroaches” who defend the disadvantaged, or protect the “termites” who plunder the nation’s forests and democracy. The text follows unaltered.

Hon’ble Chief Justice of India,

New Delhi.

Esteemed Sir,

Citizens for Democracy (CFD) strongly protests your comment equating environmentalists, RTI activists and others with cockroaches and parasites.

While hearing a petition filed by a lawyer seeking designation as a senior advocate, you said in the court on May 15, 2026, "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 profession. Some of them become media, some of them become social media, RTI activists and other activists, and they start attacking everyone."

Your comment generated heat and anger among the activists following which you tried to clarify your position the next day: “I am pained to read how a section of the media has misquoted my oral observations made during the hearing of a frivolous case yesterday. What I had specifically criticised were those who have entered professions like the Bar (legal profession) with the aid of fake and bogus degrees. Similar persons have sneaked into the media, social media, and other noble professions as well, and hence, they are like parasites. It is totally baseless to suggest that I criticised the youth of our nation. Not only am I proud of our present and future human resource, but every youth of India inspires me. It is not an exaggeration to say that Indian youth have great regard and respect for me, and I too see them as the pillars of a developed India.”

This is a lame explanation as your comment does target activists who you have presumed that if they are young, and have become activist they must have failed to get “any employment”. In short, using a context of a lawyer seeking the designation as ‘senior lawyer’ you tried to castigate aspersions on all those who speak for the ordinary citizens of the country. We wonder, if you, from the chair of a judge would accept such an explanation. It would have been proper for you to withdraw your uncharitable remarks and apologize for your inadvertence. What was the judicial rationale behind your comment?

What is more striking is, your comment is very close to the Prime Minister Narendra Modi calling the activists Andolanjivi. He has floated many epithets – urban Naxals, Lutyens’ Delhi gang, Khan Market gang, apart from free flowing ‘anti-national’ but the epithet Andolanjivi stands out. However, your dislike for activists is chilling. All activists, and indeed, all citizens have full faith in the judiciary so far, particularly, the higher judiciary but your prejudicial and unsolicited comment clouds our faith in judiciary. We are tempted to think that whether a judge’s personal prejudices play a role in their highsounding preaching presented as lengthy and scholarly judgments.

Just to refresh your memory, On August 20, 2024, in the suo motu case titled 'In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents', a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the Calcutta High Court's judgment and expressed disapproval of its remarks. The Court said:

These are golden words for all judges: However, prejudice can reflect in judicial overreach too. Let us take the example of bail application of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam rejected by the bench which included you. Not only their bail plea was rejected but also you forbade them to come again with a bail plea for one year. Except your personal prejudice, we find no rationale behind your decision not to see the cockroaches that Umar and Sharjeel are for one year.

The object of your ire was not unemployed youth in general, but activists who “start attacking everyone.” Yet activism is not a stranger to the judiciary, which itself has had a tradition of “judicial activism” in India. The legal scholar Upendra Baxi had said, "Judges are evaluated as activists by various social groups in terms of their interests, ideologies and values…,” but he found no standard definition, and finally settled for "an activist judge is a person who has disappointed the expectations of the governing elite which put her in the judgment seat."

But, then, there could be pro-authority judicial activism too. We do not know whether the Judiciary is passing through that stage but we do recall a case: On September 25, 2024, A 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud heard suo motu a matter relating to viral clippings of controversial comments made by Justice V Srishanandan of Karnataka High Court during hearings. In one video, he was seen referring to an area in Bangalore, which is apparently Muslim dominated, as "Pakistan". In another video, he was seen making objectionable remarks to a woman advocate in a matrimonial dispute. The Apex Court decided not to pursue the matter further in the light of the regret expressed by the Judge in the open court after the Supreme Court's intervention. The 5-judge bench observed: “…Courts therefore have to be careful not to make comments in the course of judicial proceedings which may be construed as being misogynistic or prejudicial to any segment of our society," the bench observed in its order. "

Unfortunately, you could not see termites. They eat up your books, furniture, cupboard and the doors of your house. They eat up government files you summon for inspection! Not only that, they eat up entire forests! Our forests are subjected to ruthless exploitation by the termites that thrive at the cost of ordinary people – poor Adivasis who are forcibly evicted to make room for big moneybags who also manage elections and governments. We exist to tell these termites that they are nothing but termites who eat away the country built by farmers and labourers.

Milord, whether you agree or not, we consider it the Judiciary’s first and foremost duty to safeguard the interests of the disadvantaged of the society, not out of charity but it is written in the Constitution. Activists and the victims of ‘development’ will still continue to come to you, and, therefore, you have no reason to resent our presence. We are doing our duty to safeguard the interests of have-nots and we will continue to do so. It is for you to decide whether you will stand by the Constitution and support cockroaches, or protect the interests of termites.

Anand Kumar ( President) Shashi Shekhar Prasad Singh (General Secretary)

About CFD

Citizens for Democracy was founded by Jai Prakash Narayan in 1974 April. Two years later JP founded PUCL. While CFD worked on political issues PUCL focused on legal action for the political detainees. CFD had MC Chagla, Justice VM Tarkunde, Kuldeep Nayar as its general secretaries. CFD brought out a scathing report on Sikh massacre in 1984. It was the first to set up an election reform committee chaired by Justice Tarkunde. All election reform discussions cannot ignore Tarkunde committee report. Now the collective is working to revive its original spirit.