New Delhi (Delhi) [India], May 16 (HBTV): Expressing concern over the growing number of lawyers allegedly holding fake law degrees, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said there were enough ‘parasites’ in society attacking the judiciary and that lawyers should not align with them.
Commenting on unemployed young lawyers turning to social media instead of legal practice, the CJI said, ‘There are already parasites of society who attack the system, and you want to join hands with them? There are youngsters like cockroaches, who don't get any employment and don't have a place in a profession. Some of them become media, some of them become social media, some of them become RTI activists, some of them become other activists, and they start attacking everyone... and you people file contempt petitions.’
The apex court observed that the Central Bureau of Investigation should ideally investigate the issue of fake law degrees.
The CJI remarked that he was awaiting an appropriate case to order a CBI probe into the law degrees of several advocates in Delhi, citing concerns over their social media activity.
‘I have serious doubts about the genuineness of their law degrees... the things they are posting on Facebook, YouTube, etc., do they think we are not watching?’ he said.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that there were ‘thousands of fraudulent people wearing black robes with serious doubts about their degrees’.
The observations were made during the hearing of a plea alleging that the Delhi High Court had failed to implement the Supreme Court of India guidelines on the designation of senior advocates.
The court declined to entertain the petition and also objected to the language used by the petitioner’s counsel, Sanjay Dubey, on social media.
‘Let people understand the kind of language you are using on Facebook. I will show you what discipline in the profession means,’ the CJI said.
Justice Bagchi also questioned whether the designation of senior advocate was being treated merely as a status symbol rather than a means to contribute meaningfully to the justice delivery system.
The petitioner later withdrew the plea.
The lawyer had earlier filed a writ petition challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision refusing to consider him for designation as a senior advocate. He later moved a contempt plea alleging non-compliance with an earlier direction issued by the Supreme Court, which had dismissed the contempt petition in December last year. (ANI)