The Supreme Court strongly criticised increasing attacks on the judiciary and legal institutions while hearing a plea related
May 15, 2026: The Supreme Court of India on Friday expressed serious concern over what it described as increasing and unwarranted attacks on the judiciary and legal institutions. During the hearing of a plea connected to the conferment of senior advocate designation, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant made sharp remarks about individuals targeting institutions through social media and activism.
A bench comprising the CJI and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition filed by advocate Sanjay Dubey seeking contempt action over the alleged delay by the Delhi High Court in implementing Supreme Court guidelines on senior advocate designation.
During the proceedings, the CJI remarked that some unemployed individuals become “media, social media, RTI activists and other activists” and start attacking institutions. He further observed that there were already “parasites” in society attacking the system and questioned whether the petitioner wanted to align with such elements.
The bench refused to entertain the plea and criticised the petitioner’s conduct, observing that the designation of senior advocate was a distinction granted by the court and not something to be pursued aggressively through litigation. Justice Bagchi questioned whether the senior advocate tag had become merely a “status symbol” rather than a responsibility within the justice delivery system.
The court also took exception to the petitioner’s alleged social media conduct, with the CJI warning that the language used online was inconsistent with the discipline expected from members of the legal profession.
In another significant observation, the bench raised concerns about the growing number of lawyers allegedly possessing fake or questionable degrees. The CJI suggested that the issue required investigation and remarked that agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation should look into the matter. The bench also observed that Bar Council bodies were unlikely to act firmly because they depended on votes from members.
As the hearing progressed, the petitioner apologised before the court and sought permission to withdraw the plea. The Supreme Court subsequently allowed the withdrawal of the petition.