From “Cockroaches” To “Don’t Travel By Air”: How Off-The-Cuff Lines Are Shaping Views Of The Supreme Court

On Monday, a plea about a reported 700% surge in Diwali airfares came before the Supreme Court, with a request for urgent listing. Justice Vikram Nath declined, and his answer was brief: “Don’t travel by air. Next case.”

The remark quickly triggered anger and criticism on social media, with users questioning whether telling people not to fly was a meaningful response to concerns over soaring ticket prices.

Many viewed the observation as dismissive of ordinary passengers who depend on air travel, particularly during the festive season, when fares can become prohibitively expensive.

The episode also revived a wider debate about judicial sensitivity towards everyday problems, with users drawing comparisons to the other recent Supreme Court remarks that had attracted public criticism.

Notably, it was not the first time in recent months that a few words from the bench travelled far beyond the courtroom. In May, CJI Surya Kant likened some unemployed youth to “cockroaches.”

A more recent observation warned that “if every citizen becomes a journalist, it will create problems for us all.” Three remarks in six months, and three public rows over how far the bench appears to understand the everyday concerns of citizens.

All three were spoken, not written: oral remarks in open court, not findings in any order. That distinction matters, because a passing comment is not a ruling. But words said in open court rarely stay in the room. They were widely reported and widely read as signals, and a signal, once sent, is hard to take back.

What Did The Court Say On Airfares?

The application, filed by S Laxminarayanan in a pending PIL, was mentioned by advocate Abhinav before a three-judge bench on Monday, November 2, Livelaw reported. He argued that fares on major domestic routes had risen two to seven times ahead of Diwali, that air travel is an essential service, and that such increases violate Article 14.

The application said confirmed train tickets for festival dates sell out weeks in advance, leaving flying as the only option for many families. Justice Nath cut the submission short, saying "Don't travel by air. Next case," and moved on without granting urgent listing.

Why Did The Remark Land Awkwardly?

Notably, the court itself has treated the problem as serious. In January 2026 it described steep fare escalation during major festivals as exploitation of passengers. A Justice Nath-led bench had earlier observed that people should get some relief, noting that two airlines could charge ₹8,000 and ₹18,000 for the same route on the same day and that there had to be some rationalisation.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had assured the bench the rules would be published within two weeks. The Centre notified the Bharatiya Vayuyan Niyam, 2026 on November 1, a day before the remark, after the court's push in that same PIL.

The main matter remains listed for November 16. In legal terms, the refusal was about urgent listing of a Diwali-specific application, not a ruling on the merits. But the quip stood out against that background.

What Did The CJI Say In May, And How Did Critics React?

On May 15, hearing a petition about the senior-advocate designation process alongside Justice Joymalya Bagchi, CJI Surya Kant criticised the language the petitioner's lawyer had used on social media.

He said, "There are youngsters like cockroaches, who don't get any employment or have any place in the profession. Some of them become media, some of them become social media, RTI activists and other activists, and they start attacking everyone."

He added that such people had "sneaked into media, social media, and other noble professions and hence they are like parasites."

The backlash was swift. Abhijeet Dipke launched the satirical Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) on May 16, and Al Jazeera described it as a viral youth front built around the insult; coverage reported hundreds of thousands signing up within a week. The party's own slogan casts it as a voice of the lazy and unemployed.

The very same CJP then led a popular movement which led to the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan due to the alleged paper leaks that happened in NEET examinations. The political movement, as it has been described, has since participated in other demonstrations including protests against CEC Gyanesh Kumar and the alleged irregularities in SIR.  

What Clarification Followed?

On May 16 the CJI clarified that his remarks were directed solely at people entering law, media and other professions with fake or bogus degrees. He said it was "totally baseless" to suggest he had criticised the nation's youth, whom he called pillars of a developed India, and that sections of the media had misquoted him.

What Was The 'Every Citizen A Journalist' Remark?

In a mid-October hearing on petitions linked to protests in Delhi, including an alleged assault on a woman journalist during demonstrations on October 10-11, the court observed that "if every citizen becomes a journalist, it will create problems for us all."

Reports noted that the court also said it would examine how to distinguish accredited journalists from influencers, and cautioned against harsh action against women journalists.

Commentators have pointed out that Indian law does not define who is entitled to journalistic privileges or access. Online, the line drew satire, including a Hindi media outlet's piece mocking the idea that wider participation in reporting is a problem.

Are Oral Remarks Shaping A Perception Problem?

Oral observations are often exploratory, devil's-advocate questions or reactions to counsel's conduct; they do not bind anyone and may not appear in the order.

The CJI's own clarification, and the technical nature of Monday's refusal, are reminders of that. Yet the three episodes share a pattern: brief, quotable lines about travellers, unemployed youth and citizen reporters that sit uneasily beside the court's more careful written work, such as its stance on festival fares.

Justice Deepak Gupta, a former Supreme Court Judge, succinctly summarised the problem in a conversation with Bar and Bench."We think because the judge has said this, then he must be deciding like this," he said while clarifying that judges sometimes play devil's advocate to test arguments and that their views can change after hearing the opposing side.

The Supreme Court Observer in 2025 published an analysis titled Oral remarks by Judges: What's their purpose? It discussed how remarks made during hearings are increasingly extracted from courtroom proceedings and turned into news stories in the age of live-streaming and live-tweeting.

The analysis made an important argument that a legal distinction must be made between oral remarks and its judgments and orders, the latter of which reflects the courts formal opinion.