Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Friday took strong exception to media reports that he had refused to grant an urgent hearing in a plea concerning alleged police excesses against student protesters linked to the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) demonstrations in Delhi. Speaking in open court, the CJI clarified that no formal petition had been filed in the matter and that the media had recklessly and falsely reported his remarks.
“Some person mentioned it. Media has falsely reported that I refused to list the matter. It was only a representation and people started recklessly reporting it. I checked with registry and not a paper was filed,” the Chief Justice stated.
He further said, “In the last two days, a completely false statement was made that a matter was filed, and the media is absolutely free from all responsibility, falsely reporting that the Chief Justice refused to list the matter. Till morning 10 AM, not a single page has been filed. It was one representation… sent by that Mishra or someone. How can I treat the representation as a writ petition? And people start recklessly reporting this.”
The controversy arose from an oral representation submitted by a lawyer on July 22. Advocate Narendra Mishra had sought to bring to the Court’s notice the ongoing student protests at Jantar Mantar, alleging that police and other forces were resorting to brutal action against the demonstrators and claiming that video evidence of the excesses was available. The lawyer orally mentioned his letter petition addressed to the CJI concerning the police action on student protests.
The lawyer also raised broader concerns, including demands for a fair NEET examination and the dissolution of the National Testing Agency in light of repeated paper leaks, and sought listing of the matter. However, no formal petition was filed in this matter by the lawyer or anyone else.
Responding to the oral mention, CJI Surya Kant had remarked, “Please don’t waste our time and don’t waste yours. Your time is more valuable than ours.” When the Court called out the next matter, the counsel insisted that he can present videos showing police excesses against protesting students. However, CJI Kant said that the Court was not interested in viewing the videos in such a manner. These observations were widely reported as a refusal to list or hear an urgent petition alleging police excesses against CJP protesters.
However, the Chief Justice’s clarification on Friday made it clear that the lawyer’s intervention was merely a representation and not a formal petition supported by any paper on the court’s record. He said that the representation could not have been treated as a writ petition in the absence of any formal filing.
He said that he checked with the registry of the court and confirmed that no document had been filed. With the remarks, the CJI sought to set the record straight and cautioned the media against what he described as reckless and false reporting of court proceedings.
