The Chief Justice of India declined an urgent hearing regarding allegations of police excesses during an anti-NEET protest march [1].
The remark has triggered a wider debate over how the nation's highest judicial institution communicates with the public and legal representatives during periods of civil unrest. Critics argue the tone may alienate those seeking justice, while supporters suggest it protects the court's limited resources.
During the proceedings, the Chief Justice said, "Don't waste our time" [1]. The comment came as the court considered a request for an expedited hearing to address claims of misconduct by security forces during the Monday protests [1].
The Chief Justice said that the Supreme Court alone decides which matters merit urgent consideration [2]. He declined to grant the request, maintaining that the court must prioritize its docket according to its own internal criteria [2].
The anti-NEET protests have centered on grievances regarding the medical entrance examination, leading to marches that resulted in reported clashes between demonstrators and police [1]. Legal representatives for the protesters sought immediate intervention to prevent further excesses, and ensure accountability for those injured during the unrest [2].
The incident has highlighted the tension between the judiciary's need for procedural efficiency and the urgency of human rights allegations during public demonstrations. While the court maintains its authority to manage its calendar, the specific phrasing used by the Chief Justice has become a focal point for discussions on judicial temperament [1].
Legal experts are now examining whether such remarks impact the perceived accessibility of the court for citizens in crisis. The Supreme Court has not issued further statements regarding the specific terminology used during the session [2].
“"Don't waste our time."”
This incident underscores the friction between judicial administration and the expectations of public accountability. By asserting sole authority over its schedule through a sharp rebuke, the court reinforces its institutional autonomy but risks creating a perception of indifference toward urgent civil rights claims during active social unrest.
