“Our Own Social Media Is Enough”: Justice Surya Kant’s Wry Take on Criticism of Judiciary During Bihar Voter Roll Hearing

The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, was hearing a batch of pleas challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) “Special Intensive Revision” (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls ahead of the Assembly elections. The petitioners, including civil society groups like the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), have alleged large-scale and arbitrary deletions from the voter list, disproportionately affecting women, Muslims, and marginalized groups.

During the proceedings, Advocate Upadhyay, who was appearing in-person, interjected to express concern over what he described as a sustained campaign to “defame the judiciary and the Election Commission.”

He said, “This is all an exercise to defame our judiciary and our country,” referring to the criticism of the voter roll process being circulated online and in the international press.

Justice Kant responded with a touch of humour, saying, “No, don’t get bothered about foreign newspapers or anything. For that, our own social media websites are sufficient.”

The courtroom broke into light laughter, briefly easing the otherwise intense atmosphere of the hearing.

The remark, though light-hearted, reflected a deeper concern within the judiciary about the surge of online commentary and misinformation that often targets judges and courts. Over the past few years, several benches have expressed disquiet about the manner in which judicial proceedings and orders are discussed, misinterpreted, or attacked on social media platforms.

Justice Kant’s quip, while sardonic, seemed to acknowledge that the loudest and most persistent criticism of the judiciary often comes not from abroad, but from within India’s own digital ecosystem.

In a related news, on October 6, Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta had condemned the attempted attack on Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai which occurred inside his courtroom. "Today’s incident in the Chief Justice’s court is unfortunate and deserves condemnation. This is the result of misinformation in social media", SG Mehta had said. "I have personally seen Chief Justice visiting religious places of all religions with full reverence. The Chief Justice has also clarified this position. It is not understood what promoted one miscreant to do what he did today. It appears to be an act of some attention seeker wanting cheap publicity.", SG Mehta had further said in CJI's defense.

The Supreme Court of India yesterday had witnessed a brief moment of chaos when a lawyer, namely, Advocate Rakesh Kishore dressed in full uniform and carrying a bag along with a rolled-up bundle of papers, attempted to attack the Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, during ongoing proceedings. The lawyer was quickly restrained and escorted out of the courtroom. As he was removed, he reportedly shouted, “Sanatan ka apmaan nahi sahega Hindustan,” sparking concern among those present. He later apologized to Justice K. Vinod Chandran, clarifying that his actions were intended only for Justice Gavai.

The actions allegedly emanated after the CJI made certain remarks during a recent hearing relating to the restoration of a 7-foot beheaded idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari temple in Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh. Refusing any relief, the CJI had said, "Go and ask the deity now. You say you are a staunch devotee of Lord Vishnu, so go and pray now".

Later the CJI had clarified his remarks and said "I respect all religions", responding to reactions on his comments made during the Khajuraho Vishnu Idol matter.

Then too, Solicitor General Mehta had defended CJI Gavai and said it was unfortunate that the CJI's remarks were made viral based upon totally incorrect information attributing something to the CJI which was taken completely out of context. He said he had known CJI since last 10 years and added that CJI visits all religious places with equal reverence and would not even think of insulting any deity. SG Mehta had said, "I have known CJI for last ten years..this is serious..we know Newton's law, every action has equal reaction..now every action has disproportionate social media reaction..".

In the case, the CJI led Bench had opined that as Khajuraho is an archaeological site, the permission from Archeological Survey of India would be required. Filed by Rakesh Dalal, the petition claimed that the idol remained in that state despite repeated representations to the government to restore it.

Last month, at the St. Regis in Mumbai, former Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud pushed back against the charge that the higher judiciary tilts towards the government. In conversation with journalist Rajdeep Sardesai on the issue of judicial independence, Dr. Chandrachud said that the concept is often reduced to simplistic binaries, especially on social media. “Unless you decide every single case along the ideological lines of ‘I’ – the person on social media – then you are independent. The moment you decide a case against an ideology, you are labelled pro-government,” he had said.

Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors v. Election Commission of India & Anr.