Supreme Court Seeks Union's Response On Plea For CBI Probe Against Fake Advocates & Curbs On Monetisation Of Judges' Remarks
Debby Jain
11 Aug 2026 12:37 PM IST
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on a petition seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigation into fake advocates and fraudulent law degrees, claiming that the issues reflect a deeper erosion of professional standards within the legal system.
The petitioner also sought examination of the activities associated with the “Cockroach Janata Party,” the satirical online campaign that emerged following remarks made by the Chief Justice of India
Filed by Advocate Raja Choudhary, the petition further seeks action against persons allegedly involved in the commercial exploitation of oral courtroom observations, including claims of trademark appropriation and monetised circulation of remarks made during court proceedings.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana issued notice to the Union, the the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), the Bar Council of India and the CBI.
During the brief hearing, the petitioner, appearing as party-in-person, referred to the Allahabad High Court's judgment in Mohammad Kafeel Versus State of U.P. and Another which addressed the issue of criminalization of the legal profession due to the proliferation of fake lawyers.
According to the plea, oral observations made during a recent hearing were selectively clipped, taken out of context, and transformed into viral social media content, memes, and commercial material.
The petitioner has clarified that the plea is not aimed at curbing legitimate criticism of the judiciary, democratic dissent, satire, or constitutionally protected free speech. Instead, it alleges organized misuse of judicial proceedings through monetized digital circulation and commercial appropriation of courtroom exchanges.
The plea has been filed in light of the proceedings in a case where Chief Justice of India Surya Kant made certain observations regarding professional standards and concerns about fake lawyers infiltrating the profession. He made an observation comparing unemployed youth turning to activism through media, social media and RTI to cockroaches. The CJI later clarified that his comments were directed at people joining professions with fake degrees.
The petition states that portions of the courtroom exchange were subsequently clipped and circulated online without context, leading to trolling, memes, mimicry and viral dissemination detached from the original proceedings.
A social media movement named “Cockroach Janta Party” emerged in the aftermath of the hearing, gaining significant traction on social media after the controversy surrounding the courtroom remarks.
The plea claims that the controversy was transformed into a vehicle for branding, publicity, online engagement and commercial activity. The petition argues that oral exchanges during judicial proceedings cannot be converted into commercial digital property, political branding or monetised public spectacle detached from their judicial context.
“oral observations made during dynamic judicial proceedings do not constitute final adjudication and cannot constitutionally be appropriated for commercial exploitation, political branding, meme merchandising, trade mark benefits, or monetised digital circulation detached from judicial context. The emergence of entities and symbolic campaigns allegedly using courtroom expressions for publicity, trade applications, commercial engagement, and digital mobilisation demonstrates dangerous commodification of constitutional proceedings”, it states.
The petition highlights multiple trademark applications filed for the expression “Cockroach Janta Party”, after the satirical outfit amassed millions of followers on social media within days of its launch.
The petition argues that the issue is not criticism of the judiciary or democratic dissent protected under Article 19(1)(a), but the “organised commercial exploitation”, trademark commercialisation and monetised circulation of oral courtroom proceedings. The plea states that criticism of judgments is permissible, but commercial appropriation of courtroom interactions is not.
The petition also refers to statements made by the Chairperson of the Bar Council of India that approximately 35-40% of advocates are fake.
The petition argues that constitutional courts depend on public confidence and institutional trust. It contends that the selective clipping and circulation of oral exchanges risks undermining the dignity of judicial institutions.
The plea seeks a direction for an independent investigation, preferably by the CBI or another independent agency, into allegations concerning fake advocates, fraudulent law degrees, impersonation within legal practice and deterioration of professional standards in the legal profession.
It further seeks directions to competent authorities to examine and take action against persons or entities allegedly involved in the commercial exploitation, trademark appropriation, monetised circulation or unauthorised commercial use of oral courtroom observations arising from Supreme Court proceedings, including activities associated with “Cockroach Janta Party”.
The plea has been filed through Advocate-on-Record Rajesh Singh Chauhan.
Case no. – Diary no. 32981/2026
Case Title – Raja Choudhary v. Union of India
