New Delhi, August 11, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking safeguards against the alleged commercial exploitation and monetisation of oral observations made during judicial proceedings through social media campaigns and digital content.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana sought responses from the Union of India, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Bar Council of India and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The matter has been posted for further hearing on September 10.
The PIL, filed through advocate-on-record Rajesh Singh Chauhan, raises concerns over the alleged conversion of courtroom exchanges and oral observations of constitutional courts into viral digital content, memes, political symbolism and monetised online campaigns detached from their judicial and procedural context.
The petition specifically refers to the satirical social media campaign titled “Cockroach Janta Party” (CJP), alleging that a controversy arising from oral observations during a Supreme Court hearing was transformed into “digitally marketable content, political symbolism, viral commodities, and monetised spectacle”.
According to the plea, the campaign rapidly developed into a large-scale digital movement, with courtroom remarks allegedly being selectively clipped, circulated and converted into memes and viral content.
The petitioner has clarified that the PIL is not aimed at restricting criticism of the judiciary or democratic dissent protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Instead, it raises concerns over what it describes as organised commercial exploitation and monetisation of judicial proceedings.
The plea seeks safeguards against organised commercial exploitation, trademark commercialisation, monetised viral circulation, meme-based distortion and algorithmically amplified digital commodification of oral courtroom proceedings and constitutional discourse. It has also sought appropriate directions for an investigation into activities allegedly involving monetisation, branding and digital propagation of controversies arising from oral observations made during court proceedings.
The controversy dates back to oral observations made during a May 15 hearing, when expressions including references to “parasites” and “youngsters like cockroaches” were reportedly used in the context of persons allegedly entering professions on the basis of fake degrees.
The remarks subsequently triggered the CJP campaign on social media. The petitioner alleged that the courtroom interaction was “selectively clipped, meme-ified, mimicked, commercially circulated, and transformed into viral digital content”.
Following the controversy, CJI Surya Kant clarified that the remarks were specifically directed at persons obtaining “fake and bogus degrees” and were not aimed at the youth of the country.
The PIL contends that constitutional courts derive legitimacy from “public confidence, institutional neutrality, constitutional trust, and procedural seriousness” rather than algorithmic popularity or approval.
It has also raised concerns over the growing influence of “outrage algorithms, trolling cultures, meme warfare, emotional mobilisation, and monetised virality” on public discourse surrounding judicial proceedings.
According to the petitioner, the increasing transformation of courtroom interactions into viral spectacles could undermine the institutional dignity of constitutional courts and public confidence in the judicial process.
The PIL has urged the Supreme Court to formulate safeguards governing the commercial use and monetisation of judicial proceedings and to prevent oral observations from being selectively distorted or commercially exploited in a manner detached from the context in which they were made.
FOLLOW NOW
