The Supreme Court has sought responses from the Centre, the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on a plea seeking an investigation into alleged fake advocates, fraudulent law degrees and the activities of people linked to the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has also been named as a respondent in the case.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, took note of the petition on Tuesday. Advocate Raja Choudhary, who appeared as a party-in-person, filed the plea. It seeks an inquiry into the activities of people associated with CJP and also raises concerns over the alleged commercial use of remarks made during court proceedings.

The CJP came into existence after a remark made by CJI Surya Kant during a court hearing in May. The group later became associated with a Gen-Z protest against the alleged NEET-UG paper leak. The latest plea questions how a word used by the CJI during judicial proceedings was later taken out of its original context and used across social media and other platforms.

The petition also raises concerns over the alleged commercial exploitation, trademark appropriation and monetised circulation of oral observations made during court hearings. It claims that parts of the May 15 proceedings were selectively edited and later circulated through memes, videos, mimicry, political branding and other forms of commercial content.

The lawyer argued that the matter required a deeper investigation into how the word "cockroach", which the CJI had used in a different judicial context, was selectively picked and edited. According to the plea, the word was then commercially exploited in a way that could undermine judicial dignity and affect the integrity of the institution.

The petition has asked the authorities "to examine and take action in accordance with law against persons/entities allegedly involved in commercial exploitation, trademark appropriation, monetised circulation, or unauthorised commercial use of oral courtroom observations/metaphors, including activities of CJP, while recognising that fair criticism, democratic dissent, satire, and free speech remain permissible within the constitutional framework without undermining institutional dignity".

The plea also explained the circumstances in which the CJI-led bench made the "cockroach" remark on May 15. The bench was hearing another petition filed by Sanjay Dubey at the time. According to the fresh plea, the CJI used the term while discussing fake advocates and concerns over the misuse of court proceedings.

The petition said the CJI had expressed "concerns regarding misuse of court process, deterioration of professional standards and how it impacted the institution itself". It argued that the remark was made in the context of concerns surrounding fake advocates and professional standards, rather than in relation to the CJP.

The fresh plea further claimed that clips of judicial proceedings have increased sharply since the May 15 hearing. It alleged that selectively edited versions of court proceedings and observations are being shared widely on social media. The petitioner claimed that these distorted versions have been turned into memes and are also being circulated for financial gains.

The plea therefore seeks scrutiny of the people and entities allegedly involved in editing, circulating and commercially using such material. At the same time, it recognises that criticism, satire, democratic dissent and free speech are protected within the constitutional framework. The petition argues that such rights should not be used in a manner that undermines the dignity of the judiciary or affects institutional integrity.

The Supreme Court's decision to seek responses from the Centre, BCI and CBI and the inclusion of the electronics and information technology ministry also reflects the petition's focus on the circulation and monetisation of content through digital and social media platforms.