akrishnarao

Tag: cocroach-janata-party

  • From Delhi to Patna: How Student Unrest Reshaped Bankipur

    Even though more than a week has passed since the agitation ignited in the national capital, Delhi, by thousands of students and other forces under the banner of the “Cockroach Janata Party” subsided, its tremors have not yet died down. The situation has not completely settled even after the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. The Opposition is stalling Parliament, demanding a statement from Union Home Minister Amit Shah regarding the lathi charge and firing of pellets on the students. It is gathered that the government, unable to introduce key bills apart from minor and insignificant ones, is planning to adjourn Parliament indefinitely as early as possible. Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant—who commented two weeks ago, “Why are you showing us scenes of lathi charge on students? Don’t waste our time”—is now enabling the government to withdraw FIRs against the students. Since the Centre itself approached the Supreme Court in this matter, he appears to be offering the government a way to save face.

    On one side, although his fans and BJP leaders are abusing the students with various words, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced with a very large heart that he has forgiven them. However, this announcement did not yield the expected positive results. Modi and Amit Shah are coming to Parliament, but they are not getting the opportunity to attend both Houses. Surprisingly, officials themselves say that the Home Minister is not coming to Kartavya Bhavan (the seat of the Home Ministry) at all, and is conducting one or two important meetings in his own room in Parliament. The only incident that made Modi very happy during this crisis was being entertained with songs, dances, and a torrential rain of praise on the occasion of the inauguration of Bhogapuram Airport in Andhra Pradesh. But as soon as he returned to Delhi, the situation returned to the same heat!

    It is unknown how long this troubled period will last, but many observers say that the results of the three Assembly by-elections held during this time indicate a coming change in the country’s politics—especially the election results of the Bankipur constituency in Bihar. Bankipur, a constituency under the Patna Sahib Lok Sabha area in the capital of Bihar, became the center of the Cockroach Janata Party agitation. Recently, when students took to the streets across several cities in the country during the NEET question paper leak, its intensity was seen severely in Patna. Demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, thousands of students residing in colleges and hostels centered in Bankipur marched out in a procession. Normal life came to a standstill on Ashok Rajpath and Boring Road, where a large number of coaching centers for students are located in the city.

    In Siwan and other key districts, the protest turned violent. Incidents such as lathi charges, stone-pelting, use of tear gas and water cannons, burning of police jeeps, and blockades of national highways took place. Videos of students being injured due to firing with AK-47s were circulated. Police barged into private hostels located in the narrow lanes of Bankipur, dragged out students who had come for coaching, and beat them severely. On the single day of the Bihar Bandh called on July 25, 690 people were detained. Murder charges were framed against many. The surprising fact is that while the Bankipur by-election was on July 30, the Bihar Home Department issued emergency orders on July 27 withdrawing all FIRs against the students. Yet, it was of no use.

    In March 1974, when Patna University students laid siege to the Assembly under the leadership of Jayaprakash Narayan, several students lost their lives in the firing and lathi charge carried out by the police. Afterwards, at a public meeting held at Gandhi Maidan in the presence of lakhs of people, JP gave a call for “Sampoorna Kranti” (Total Revolution). The statue of Jayaprakash built at the crossroads right next to the same Gandhi Maidan in Bankipur stands as a direct witness to recent events. In the surroundings of this area, known as JP Golambar, police once again pounced upon students. Before the Emergency, the JP movement spread from Patna to Delhi. Now, the Cockroach protest from Delhi echoed in the streets of Patna. It is no exaggeration to say that this echo decided the Bankipur election results.

    It goes without saying that in Bankipur, which had been in the BJP’s grip for the past three decades, the winner was not Prashant Kishor, leader of the Jan Suraaj Party that lost all its seats in the previous elections, but the students. It was only because he won five times from here that Nitin Nabin was able to become the BJP National President. The reason he gave up his MLA seat to choose the Rajya Sabha was that the top leaders of that party believed the BJP would win there effortlessly. The comment made by former Union Minister and Patna MP Ravi Shankar Prasad—”Even if a dog is fielded there, the BJP will make it win”—is proof of this. However, the BJP’s vote share plummeted from 62 percent to 34.4 percent in just one year! Because Kayasthas constitute 14 percent of the voters in Bankipur, Nitin Nabin used to win from there, as Bhumihars and Brahmins at 8 percent each, Rajputs at 7 percent, Kurmis at 5 percent, and Kushwahas at 3 percent also used to vote for him. In these by-elections, caste equations failed completely. These results must serve as an eye-opener to politicians who rely solely on caste equations!

    The Bankipur election results are merely a warning that the Bharatiya Janata Party must act with extreme caution hereafter in urban areas with high concentrations of middle-class and upper-caste populations. Bankipur made it clear that educated young voters in this country can influence election results. BJP leaders can no longer remain confident that urban areas like Lucknow, Prayagraj, Kanpur, and Noida in Uttar Pradesh, where elections are due in another seven to eight months, will remain their strongholds as in the past.

    Lekha Chakraborty, a prominent economist and professor at the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy (NIPFP) under the Union Ministry of Finance, attempted to scientifically analyze the students’ agitation. In a study, she expressed the view that just because individuals face similar problems, they do not fight spontaneously; when issues like paper leaks and job insecurity become strong motivators, combined with digital technology, youth unite on a massive scale. She stated that there is no connection between degrees and employment, and that only one-fourth of those with degrees get proper salaried jobs. One-third of the Periodic Labour Force lives on self-employment, and most of them depend on agriculture, earning low incomes.

    The ‘State of Working India 2026’ report released by Azim Premji University also confirms the study conducted by Lekha Chakraborty. It stated that although education has become accessible to sections that did not benefit in the past, meaningful opportunities to convert their qualifications into productive employment are not arising. These studies express deep concern over faculty leaving public universities, the decline in curriculum quality, and the falling value of degrees.

    They make it clear that advanced technology can reduce leaks and increase transparency, but it cannot create labor demand or restore the credibility of educational institutions. Economists themselves say that without increasing the education budget to 6 percent of GDP as recommended by the National Education Policy, and without properly building classrooms, providing teacher salaries and training, creating high-skilled jobs, and restoring the credibility of examinations, the problems cannot be solved. They warn that unresolved discontent provides continuous motivation to the people, and government suppression measures raise the danger level and strengthen collective unity.

    If politicians thought as scientifically as economists think, why would problems turn into crises and water flow under their rugs? Famous historian Will Durant did not remark in vain regarding the fall of the Roman Empire: “Great empires are not conquered from the outside; they destroy themselves from within.”

  • The Cockroach Crisis: Is India’s Judiciary Losing Public Trust?

    “If the judiciary loses its credibility, nothing else will remain. An independent judiciary is the lifeblood of the Constitution. Without it, judges will exist, courts will exist, and judgments will exist—but their heart and soul will disappear,” said Supreme Court Judge Ujjal Bhuyan in a recent memorial lecture in Pune.

    He referred to a stark reality: the collegium itself recorded in its minutes that a High Court judge was being transferred in accordance with the wishes of the Central Government. This serves as a clear example of how a judiciary constitutionally expected to function independently can find itself working under government pressure.

    “The judiciary must remain distant from party politics and function firmly. Changes in government should have absolutely no connection with the judiciary. It should act with goodwill and sympathy towards everyone, but should not side with anyone,” said the first Chief Justice of India, H. J. Kania, at the inaugural sitting of the Supreme Court. Yet, reviewing the situation more than 75 years after the Constitution came into force, deep doubts arise as to whether standards in the higher judiciary have improved or deteriorated.

    The Historical Shield and the Ultimate Downfall

    For nearly twenty-five years after the Constitution came into force, the judiciary largely fulfilled its responsibility of preserving its own existence, protecting the fundamental rights of citizens, and defining the limits of government authority. The Supreme Court progressively interpreted Articles 14, 15, 19, and 31. In the 1967 Golaknath case, it clarified that fundamental rights could not be diluted, and in the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case, it solidified that Parliament had no authority to alter the basic structure of the Constitution.

    However, after coming to power with an overwhelming majority in 1971, Indira Gandhi’s administration began to toy with judicial independence. The absolute peak of the judiciary’s downfall in capitulating to executive overreach was the infamous ADM Jabalpur case during the Emergency.

    When thousands of political opponents and journalists were jailed without trial, and citizens sought the intervention of the courts to protect their fundamental liberties, a five-judge Constitution Bench delivered one of the most disgraceful judgments in Indian history. By a 4:1 majority, the bench ruled that during an Emergency, citizens do not even possess the right to life under Article 21.

    The majority consisted of Chief Justice A. N. Ray, Justice P. N. Bhagwati, Justice M. H. Beg, and Justice Y. V. Chandrachud (father of former Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud). When Justice H. R. Khanna—the sole courageous dissenter—asked during the hearings, “Does that mean people cannot question even if they are shot dead in the name of Emergency?”, the then-Attorney General chillingly replied, “My Lord, that is what the law says.”

    A Era of Introspection and Activism

    Following the Emergency—one of the darkest chapters in judicial history—the Supreme Court undertook deep introspection and initiated significant corrective measures. Moving past its catastrophic failure, the court aggressively declared that the Constitution, not the executive, was supreme.

    It opened its doors to the masses through Public Interest Litigations (PILs), ordered the release of thousands of undertrial prisoners languishing in jails, liberated bonded laborers, and eventually introduced the collegium system to insulate judicial appointments from political interference.

    Most importantly, it expanded the scope of personal liberties, protected the environment, championed the interests of working women, and curbed the arbitrary dismissal of state governments by ruling that political majorities must be proven on the floor of the legislature. At that stage, judicial activism was a remarkable shield for the vulnerable.

    Modern Shadows and Internal Fractures

    If the Supreme Court denied protection to human life twenty-five years after Independence, today, five decades after that judgment, the core functioning of the institution faces renewed skepticism. We may not be living in a formal Emergency, but public faith in the judiciary is noticeably shrinking.

    The fact that sitting judges themselves feel compelled to speak out demands serious reflection:

    • Justice Ujjal Bhuyan publicly emphasized that no external forces should be allowed to intrude upon judicial independence, asserting that personal political or ideological views must not influence decisions on the bench.
    • Justice B. V. Nagarathna warned that judges must not succumb to external pressures, noting that those who cannot live contentedly on their legitimate income should be eliminated from the system entirely. “A tainted judge is a stain on the entire system,” she remarked.
    • Justice S. Muralidhar, former Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, once noted: “Impartiality is the soul of the judiciary, and independence is the blood flowing through its veins.” Notably, during his tenure at the Delhi High Court, he was transferred overnight after questioning police inaction during civil unrest in the capital.

    In her book Constitution Is My Home, senior advocate Indira Jaising recalled a harrowing 2022 case involving sexual harassment allegations made by a female Additional District Judge against a Madhya Pradesh High Court judge. Not only did the victim fail to find immediate recourse, but she was also swiftly transferred and forced to resign.

    Through Jaising’s persistent legal battles, a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice L. Nageswara Rao eventually restored her position and questioned why the then-Chief Justice of the High Court had refused to even grant her an interview. Disturbingly, just days later, that very Chief Justice was elevated to the Supreme Court.

    Growing Questions and the “Cockroach” Backlash

    Why has it become necessary for judges to comment so defensively on their own institution? Critics increasingly argue that the higher judiciary—originally designed to protect the common citizen—is becoming overwhelmingly responsive to the wealthy, the state, and political elites.

    Calculated bench allocations and predictable judgments in politically sensitive cases have sparked intense debate. Former Supreme Court Bar Association President Dushyant Dave openly criticized the court for failing to check the erosion of vital institutions like the Election Commission, pointing out that judges routinely scramble for lucrative post-retirement positions.

    Simultaneously, ethical questions have mounted. Organizations like the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) heavily criticized several judges and their families for utilizing private aircraft provided by state governments, arguing it severely compromises judicial ethics. Furthermore, instances like the discovery of massive cash bundles at the residence of a former Delhi High Court judge—followed by an apparent lack of accountability—have deepened public cynicism.

    Perhaps because the public, especially the younger demographic, is closely watching these lapses, an explosive reaction occurred following recent remarks made by Supreme Court Judge Surya Kant.

    During a judicial hearing, Justice Surya Kant criticized unemployed youth, comparing them to “cockroaches” who populate social media, media outlets, and RTI activism to attack institutions. Though he later clarified that the comment was contextualized within a specific petition regarding a lawyer’s designation and was not aimed at the youth at large, the damage was done.

    Justice Surya Kant has faced widening backlash for a series of oral remarks. On May 11, 2026, during a hearing on the Pipavav Port expansion project in Gujarat, his comments drew sharp rebukes from environmentalists and legal experts. Former civil servants under the Constitutional Conduct Group warned that these remarks showed a disturbing pro-corporate bias from the bench, creating an atmosphere of fear that silences dissent. Over 70 lawyers noted that treating citizens who enforce environmental laws as “obstructionists” marks a dangerous jurisprudential shift.

    Similarly, on January 29, 2026, during a PIL hearing on domestic workers’ rights, Justice Surya Kant blamed trade unions for stifling industrial growth and shutting down traditional industries. Labor bodies, including the AITUC, strongly condemned the court for misreading economic realities, arguing that industrial stagnation is driven by corporate monopoly and pro-corporate state policies, not by workers asserting their legal rights.

    The Danger of Erased Boundaries

    Following the “cockroach” commentary, a young citizen created a social media movement under the banner of the “Cockroach Janata Party.” Millions responded. Instead of merely deflecting the insult, the youth weaponized it, using the platform to furiously criticize the government over unemployment, inflation, corruption, and systemic scams, proclaiming: “Yes, we are cockroaches.”

    This reaction highlights a profound systemic crisis. The derogatory comments were made by a member of the judiciary, yet the public directed its anger squarely at the executive government.

    This reveals a terrifying reality: the public no longer views the government and the judiciary as separate entities.

    In a constitutional democracy, nothing is more dangerous than the total erasure of the boundary between the ruling executive and the independent judiciary. The judiciary must aggressively reform and rescue itself from this crisis. If it fails, the day may soon arrive when the “cockroaches” themselves feel forced to become the arbiters of justice.