SC seeks Centre's reply on plea for CBI probe into fake advocates, monetisation

Court issues notice on PIL over fake lawyers and social media misuse

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought responses from the Union government and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on a public interest litigation (PIL) that calls for a probe into the activities of fake advocates and a group calling itself the 'Cockroach Janta Party'. The court's decision came during a hearing on a plea that also demands restrictions on the monetisation of court proceedings and judges' remarks on digital platforms.

A bench led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) issued notices to the Centre and the CBI, asking them to file their replies within a specified timeframe. The PIL, filed by a lawyer, alleges that certain individuals are impersonating advocates and using social media to distort judicial pronouncements for financial gain.

Monetisation of courtroom remarks under scrutiny

The petition specifically highlights the growing trend of YouTube channels and social media accounts that clip and repackage courtroom exchanges, including judges' observations, to generate revenue. The petitioner argues that such content often strips the remarks of their context, misleading the public and undermining the judiciary's dignity.

One instance cited in the plea involves the 'Cockroach Janta Party' (CJP), a name apparently derived from a remark made by the CJI during a hearing. The group allegedly twisted the CJI's words to create a false narrative, which went viral online. The petitioner has urged the court to direct law enforcement agencies to investigate these activities and propose guidelines to prevent the commercial exploitation of court proceedings.

Legal questions on free speech and judicial dignity

The case raises complex questions about the balance between free speech and the protection of judicial institutions. While the petitioner seeks curbs on monetisation, the court will have to weigh these demands against constitutional guarantees of expression. The Centre's response is expected to clarify its stance on regulating online content related to the judiciary.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had expressed concern over the misuse of social media to target judges and the legal profession. In several instances, the court has taken suo motu cognisance of defamatory content aimed at the judiciary, but this is among the first pleas to specifically address the financial aspect of such activities.

What happens next

The Union government and the CBI are now expected to file their responses, after which the court will likely hear the matter in detail. The outcome could set a precedent for how digital platforms handle content involving court proceedings, and whether stricter oversight is needed to deter fake advocates and online mischief.

Observers will be watching closely to see if the court frames broader guidelines, potentially affecting how media houses and individual creators report on judicial matters. For now, the notice marks a significant step in the judiciary's effort to assert control over its public image in the digital age.