Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant said Friday he was misquoted regarding remarks about not having time to watch videos of protests [1, 3].
The clarification follows public tension over the judiciary's responsiveness to student protests and allegations of police violence. By addressing these reports, the Chief Justice is attempting to maintain the court's image as an accessible institution while emphasizing the necessity of formal legal procedure.
Justice Surya Kant said that the court is open to all legitimate petitions filed through proper procedure [3]. He addressed reports regarding the NEET student protest case, noting that only a one-page representation was filed [1]. He said the Supreme Court never refused to hear the matter [1].
Regarding other unrest, the Chief Justice addressed claims of a plea concerning police violence during a Parliament march led by the CJP. "There is no plea filed on police violence during the CJP’s Parliament march," Justice Surya Kant said [2].
While some reports suggested a full petition was eventually submitted following the initial one-page document [1], other accounts indicated that no formal plea had been filed at all [2, 3]. Despite these contradictions in reporting, the Chief Justice described some media accounts as reckless [2].
To clarify the current docket, the court agreed to hear two PILs [1]. The Chief Justice said that the judiciary does not operate based on videos or informal representations, but requires proper legal filings to initiate proceedings [3].
“"I was misquoted; the Court is open to all legitimate petitions filed through proper procedure."”
This incident highlights the friction between the rapid spread of social media evidence—such as protest videos—and the rigid procedural requirements of the Indian judicial system. By insisting on formal petitions over digital representations, the Supreme Court is reinforcing the boundary between public activism and legal adjudication, signaling that the court will not bypass standard filing protocols regardless of public pressure.
