The Judge Who Called Them Cockroaches Just Refused to Hear Their Case. 'Don't Waste Our Time,' He Said.
By The Squirrels·
The Circularity
Follow the sequence:
May 15, 2026. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, during a Supreme Court hearing, compares unemployed youth to "cockroaches": "There are youngsters like cockroaches, who don't get any employment... some of them become social media activists, and they start attacking everyone."
May 16, 2026. Abhijeet Dipke launches the Cockroach Janta Party — adopting the CJI's insult as an identity.
June 28 – July 20. The movement grows. Hunger strike. Hospitalisation. Parliament march. Tear gas. Lathi-charge. Internet shutdown. 180 people injured. FIR filed.
July 22, 2026. A petition challenging police brutality against CJP protesters is mentioned before the Supreme Court, seeking urgent hearing. The bench is headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant — the same judge whose remark created the movement.
His response: "We don't have time. We don't want to watch videos. Don't waste our time."
The judge who called them cockroaches refused to hear the case about what happened to them when they took to the streets.
What Was Sought — and What Was Said
The Petition
A lawyer mentioned the petition before the CJI's bench, seeking urgent listing of a plea challenging the Delhi Police's response to the CJP's July 20 Chalo Sansad march. The petition asked the court to:
Take suo motu cognisance of the alleged police brutality
Review video evidence of lathi-charges, tear gas deployment, and assaults on peaceful protesters
Direct an independent investigation into the crackdown
The counsel argued the protesters were demonstrating over issues of public importance — NEET paper leaks, NTA reform, student suicides — and that the police response was disproportionate.
The Court's Response
CJI Surya Kant's bench responded with three statements:
"We don't have time."
"We don't want to watch videos."
"Don't waste our time."
The petition was not listed for urgent hearing. No date was assigned. The matter was effectively dismissed at the mention stage.
Why It Matters: The CJI's Dual Role
The Chief Justice of India occupies two roles in this story. Both are institutional. Neither is personal. But the intersection creates a constitutional tension that cannot be ignored.
Role 1: The remark that triggered the movement. CJI Surya Kant's "cockroach" comparison — made from the Supreme Court bench — was the catalyst for the CJP's formation. The movement's name, identity, and mobilising grievance derive directly from the CJI's words. Without that remark, the Cockroach Janta Party does not exist.
Role 2: The authority that declined to hear the crackdown petition. The CJI is also the administrative head of the Supreme Court and the presiding judge of the bench before which the petition was mentioned. His refusal to list the case means the judiciary's highest authority declined to examine the state's response to a movement the judiciary's highest authority inadvertently created.
The Squirrels does not allege personal bias. We note the structural conflict: a CJI who is connected to the origin of a movement — through his own public remarks — deciding whether to hear a case about the state's response to that movement. In any other institutional context, this connection would raise recusal questions.
Whether CJI Surya Kant should have recused himself from the mention is a question for constitutional scholars. What is observable is that he did not — and that his refusal to hear the case was delivered in language ("don't waste our time") that matched the dismissiveness of the original remark ("cockroaches") in register, if not in content.
16 Metro Stations Closed
While the Supreme Court declined to engage, Delhi's infrastructure told a different story about the movement's scale.
The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation closed 16 stations on Wednesday — the most extensive protest-related shutdown in recent memory:
Lok Kalyan Marg, Rajiv Chowk, Patel Chowk, Ramakrishna Ashram Marg, Barakhambha Road, Supreme Court, Seva Teerth, Janpath, Mandi House, Central Secretariat, ITO, Delhi Gate, Indraprastha, Khan Market, Jor Bagh, and Shivaji Stadium.
The closures effectively sealed central Delhi — the government district, the diplomatic enclave, and the commercial core — from public access. The stated reason: "in view of the recent students' protest."
A movement the Supreme Court said it had no time for shut down 16 stations in the city where the Supreme Court sits.
CJP's Response: 'Gandhi and Ambedkar'
CJP spokesperson Ashutosh Ranka responded to the court's refusal and the government's narrative-building:
"A narrative is trying to be built that we will not be peaceful, but we are. The march on July 20 was peaceful too — there was chaos only at the point where police unleashed brutality and beat up students."
"The youth is sitting here peacefully for 31 days because we follow the principles of Gandhi and Ambedkar."
The invocation of Gandhi and Ambedkar is strategic: it positions the movement within India's most powerful protest traditions — nonviolent resistance (Gandhi) and constitutional rights assertion (Ambedkar) — and challenges the government's framing of the CJP as disruptive or violent.
The Right-to-Protest Question the Court Didn't Hear
The petition raised a legal question that the Supreme Court will eventually have to address — whether on this petition or another:
When the state deploys tear gas, lathi-charges, internet shutdowns, and mass detentions against protesters at a designated protest site (Jantar Mantar), does the response constitute a violation of the fundamental right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution?
The question is not abstract. It has specific, documented facts:
Jantar Mantar is a legally designated protest site
The protest had continued peacefully for 31 days before the march
The march itself was peaceful until police deployed force (per multiple international media accounts — CNN, AP, AFP, Al Jazeera)
Tear gas was fired by the Rapid Action Force
Internet services were shut down in central Delhi
The movement's founder was detained
An FIR was registered against protesters
Whether these facts constitute proportionate law enforcement or disproportionate suppression of dissent is exactly the kind of question the Supreme Court exists to answer. The CJI said the court did not have time for it.
What Happens Next
The government has reached out for talks — CJP confirmed on Wednesday that communication channels remain open. Whether the talks address the core demand (Pradhan's resignation, exam reform) or serve as a pressure-release mechanism remains to be seen.
Dipke's position: No more marches (to protect protesters from police violence). No talks outside Jantar Mantar (government must come to the protest site). These conditions narrow the available escalation paths.
The Monsoon Session continues. Opposition MPs have committed to raising NEET and exam reform demands on the floor. The Budget is upcoming. The government cannot ignore the issue indefinitely — but it can manage the news cycle by shifting attention to economic announcements.
The petition will be listed eventually — either before a different bench or at a regular hearing date. The legal question does not disappear because the CJI declined to hear it urgently. It waits.
The Bottom Line
The Chief Justice of India called unemployed youth cockroaches. They formed a party named after the insult. They marched to Parliament. They were tear-gassed, beaten, and detained. They petitioned the Supreme Court. The same Chief Justice told them: don't waste our time.
The circularity is complete. The judge who created the grievance declined to adjudicate its consequences.
Whether this is a failure of judicial propriety (the CJI should have recused), a failure of judicial priority (police brutality against student protesters deserves urgent hearing), or simply the normal functioning of an overburdened court is a question reasonable people can disagree on.
What is not debatable: 16 metro stations were closed because of a movement that started with a remark from the bench. And the bench said it did not have time.