Court buildings are not built only of stone and mortar. Their true foundation is public trust. When harsh words come from the judiciary, from the highest constitutional forum, they are more than offhand remarks; they become a message to the nation. The use of terms like ‘cockroaches’ and ‘parasites’ has triggered a fresh debate.

On 15 May, during hearings on the designation of senior advocates, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant voiced concern about people who, without proper qualifications or professional competence, repeatedly attack institutions via the media, social platforms and RTI activism. He described certain elements as ‘cockroaches’ and ‘parasites’.

Also read: शब्दों की मर्यादा और अदालतों की गरिमा...

He later clarified that his remarks were not aimed at all young people or all activists, but at those who exploit the system through improper means. That clarification was necessary and welcome. Even so, an uneasy question remains: was such sharp language necessary?

India’s youth already live under immense pressure. Unemployment is rising. Competition is brutal. Millions of educated young people search for jobs, opportunities and recognition. In this climate, sweeping comments from high constitutional offices risk sounding like mockery rather than understanding. In a democracy, dissent is not the same as enmity.

It is equally true that the media, social media and RTI have been misused. Some pursue personal agendas. Some YouTube channels traffic in sensationalism. Some turn RTI into a tool of private vengeance instead of a means to public information. Courts are sometimes accused without evidence. Fake campaigns target the judiciary on social platforms. All of this is worrying.

We have seen media trials. In the Jessica Lal murder case, the Aarushi Talwar matter and the Sushant Singh Rajput case, television studios rendered verdicts before courts did. Screaming debates and sensational reporting undermined fair trials. The Supreme Court has repeatedly warned the media that restraint is essential in sub judice matters.

Courts have also flagged RTI misuse. Officials say frivolous, repetitive RTI requests disrupt administration. The Delhi High Court has observed that spiteful RTIs can create ‘fear and paralysis’ in governance. That concern cannot be dismissed outright.

But there is another side. Public commentator Prof Paras Nath Chaudhary notes, “RTI exposed many major corruption cases. It gave ordinary citizens the power to ask questions. Independent journalists and social activists have courageously exposed abuses of power. In a democracy, asking uncomfortable questions should not be a crime.”

The problem today is a growing tendency to treat every criticism as hostility and every question as conspiracy. That attitude widens the gap between institutions and citizens. The strength of courts lies not just in contempt powers but in the moral confidence they inspire.

A former Chief Justice once said the best way to preserve a court’s dignity is through the quality of its decisions and fair conduct. That remains true. Words from those in high office should reflect balance rather than harshness.

Judicial independence is the backbone of democracy and must be vigorously protected. But respect and constructive criticism are not mutually exclusive. They can and should coexist.

In a diverse, anxious and stressed society, courts must do more than enforce the law: they must build trust. Hence, the judiciary’s words should unite rather than divide. The real power of the courts lies not in creating fear but in earning trust through justice and sensitivity.