NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Friday said media reports wrongly claimed that he refused to list a matter related to student protests in Delhi. He clarified that no petition had been filed before the Supreme Court. According to the CJI, only a representation was mentioned before the Court and some reports incorrectly presented it as a refusal to hear a case.
CJI Surya Kant rejects reports about refusal to list matter
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said reports claiming that he refused to list a plea concerning the ongoing student protests in Delhi were incorrect.
The clarification came after several media reports stated that CJI Kant had declined to hear a petition alleging police excesses against student protesters in the national capital, as reported by Bar and Bench.
Addressing the issue in open court on Friday, the CJI said no petition had been filed before the Supreme Court.
“Some person mentioned it. Media has falsely reported that I refused to list the matter. It was only a representation and people started recklessly reporting it. I checked with registry and not a paper was filed,” Bar and Bench quoted the CJI as saying.
What happened in the Supreme Court on July 22
On July 22, a lawyer mentioned a matter before the Court and alleged that police and security personnel were using excessive force against student protesters gathered at Jantar Mantar in Delhi.
The lawyer requested that the matter be listed urgently and claimed that video evidence of police action was available.
“Student protest is going at Jantar Mantar. Police is taking brutal actions…,” Bar and Bench quoted the lawyer as saying.
In response, CJI Kant said, “Please don’t waste our time and don’t waste yours. Your time is more valuable than ours.”
The lawyer later argued that the case involved important issues, including demands for fair conduct of NEET examinations and the dissolution of the National Testing Agency (NTA) due to repeated paper leak allegations.
When the Court moved to the next matter, the lawyer continued to press for consideration of video evidence. However, the CJI stated that the Court was not interested in viewing the videos.
These remarks were widely reported and later became the subject of controversy.
