Cockroaches are hard to exterminate — as is the instinct to poke fun at power and hold it to account in a democracy

Ever since Chief Justice of India Surya Kant compared unemployed youth drifting into journalism and activism with parasites and cockroaches, his remarks have invited questions about the problematic language of dehumanisation and sparked a spiralling controversy. His subsequent clarification that he had specifically meant those who enter the legal profession, media and social media with “fake and bogus degrees” did not clear the impression of a repressive scolding not in keeping with the grace and generosity that remains the hallmark of his high office. The CJI’s remarks also contributed to an internet phenomenon, the formation, tongue firmly in cheek, of a meme party, the Cockroach Janta Party. That the X handle of the satirical collective has now been withheld, following a direction of the Centre, after inputs from the Intelligence Bureau, and that the government is now invoking national security, best makes the case that the CJI’s criticism was misdirected in the political context it comes in. The blocking of the CJP’s account points to where the real problem lies — not in the restless young of this country, employed or unemployed, with or without dubious degrees. It lies, instead, in the too-frequent resort by the state, strong-armed and hard-eyed, to weaponisation of the law to quell voices of satire and humour, difference and dissent.

The humble “cockroach” is part of an expanding lexicon. Undocumented immigrants have been called “termites”, “urban Naxal” is used to tar activists and critics, “anti-national” and “traitor” has become a stick to beat the political opponent with. The overuse of these terms shrinks spaces for political engagement with all points of view that is so necessary in a robust democracy. Amid this slide, however, the institution of the judiciary, and especially the Supreme Court of India is — and it must be — the space where individual freedoms and liberties are restored and protected. The SC is, after all, the custodian of the constitutional guarantees for individual rights, including the right to free speech.

Overall Analysis

This editorial examines the controversy triggered by remarks made by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who compared unemployed youth entering journalism and activism to “parasites and cockroaches.” The author argues that such language is troubling because it dehumanises sections of society and undermines the dignity expected from constitutional authorities. Even though the CJI later clarified his statement, the editorial suggests that the damage had already been done, as the remarks sounded dismissive and authoritarian rather than compassionate and balanced.

The article then shifts from criticism of language to criticism of state action. It discusses how a satirical online response — the formation of the “Cockroach Janta Party” meme collective — led to the withholding of its X account after government intervention. The editorial uses this incident to argue that the real issue is not youthful dissent or satire, but the increasing tendency of the state to suppress criticism through legal and administrative power. Expressions such as “weaponisation of the law” and “strong-armed and hard-eyed state” create a sharp image of an intolerant government machinery.

The second paragraph widens the debate by discussing the growing use of dehumanising political labels such as “termites”, “urban Naxal”, “anti-national”, and “traitor.” The author argues that such labels reduce democratic space because they replace dialogue with hostility and suspicion. The language here is persuasive and cautionary, warning readers that repeated use of such rhetoric normalises intolerance.

In the concluding lines, the editorial turns toward the judiciary itself. Despite criticising the CJI’s remarks, the author still presents the Supreme Court as the institution responsible for safeguarding constitutional freedoms and protecting free speech. This creates a balanced ending — critical of individuals, but respectful of democratic institutions. The editorial ultimately defends dissent, satire, and individual liberty as essential pillars of democracy.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Dehumanisation – treating people as if they are less than human.
2. Repressive – controlling people in a harsh or authoritarian way.
3. Quell – to suppress or put an end to something, especially unrest.
4. Lexicon – the vocabulary or set of terms used in a language or field.
5. Custodian – a person or institution responsible for protecting something valuable.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial warns against the dangerous normalization of dehumanising language and the misuse of state power to silence satire, criticism, and dissent. It argues that democracy survives only when institutions, especially the judiciary, protect freedom of expression instead of contributing to its erosion.

Tone: Critical, cautionary, and strongly pro-democratic.