CJI Surya Kant explains context behind SC’s 'don't waste our time' remark
Advertisement
New Delhi, July 24 : Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Friday clarified the context behind the Supreme Court's earlier remarks asking lawyers not to "waste" the top court's time while seeking an urgent hearing on petitions relating to the alleged police action against student protesters, saying the apex court had never refused to hear the matter and that no properly instituted petition had been before it at the time.
Speaking to NDTV, CJI Kant said the Supreme Court could never deny a hearing to any litigant and explained that only a one-page representation had been placed before the top court instead of a duly filed writ petition.
"It was reported wrongly that the Supreme Court declined to hear the petition. The Supreme Court can never deny hearing of any case. It's my commitment… we are available 24 hours," he said.
Explaining the circumstances, the CJI said, "If I have not got the petition in the first place, what hearing would I give? If they give a one-page letter and seek a hearing on it, that's not the way. We can't violate the Supreme Court's process of filing a petition. I told them they should file the petition properly."
He added that the petitioners wanted an immediate hearing despite not following the prescribed procedure. "So, I had to send a message to them to file a proper petition," the CJI said, adding that the Supreme Court had "welcomed" the petitions once they were filed in the prescribed manner.
"The law is supreme. We have to follow it. I want to tell the citizens of the country that the Supreme Court will do everything in its power under the law to give justice to anyone who faces any kind of injustice," he said.
Earlier in the day, CJI Kant had made a similar clarification in open court, refuting reports that the Supreme Court had declined to list a petition concerning the alleged police action against students during the recent 'Sansad Chalo' march. The CJI said no writ petition had been filed before the apex court and that only a representation had been submitted.
"In the last two days, a completely false statement was made that a matter was filed... Till morning 10 a.m., not a single page has been filed. It was one representation. How can I treat the representation as a writ petition?" the CJI observed.
The CJI said he had verified the position with the Supreme Court Registry before making the clarification.
The clarification came two days after the CJI-led Bench declined an oral request for urgent listing of a matter alleging police brutality against students protesting over the alleged NEET-UG 2026 paper leak.
During the mentioning, the CJI Kant-led Bench had remarked, "Please don't waste our time and don't waste yours. Your time is more valuable than ours." When the counsel referred to videos purportedly showing police action against protesters, the apex court had said, "We are not interested in videos. We don't have time to watch."
According to the representation addressed to CJI Kant, advocate Narendra Mishra had sought the Supreme Court's suo motu intervention under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging violations of fundamental rights during the handling of protests over the alleged NEET-UG 2026 paper leak.
However, later on Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear next week two petitions alleging excessive use of police force against students participating in protests across the country over examination paper leaks.
The matter was mentioned before the CJI Kant-led Bench by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who informed the top court that two petitions had now been formally filed and diary numbers had been generated.
"There are two petitions dealing with the violence that took place across the country on the students' protest," Sankaranarayanan submitted, adding that police excesses against students were continuing and required immediate judicial intervention.
Taking note of the submissions, the CJI-led Bench said, "Let it be listed, we will entertain." When the senior counsel reiterated the urgency, the CJI directed that the petitions be listed for hearing on Monday, July 27.
Speaking to NDTV, CJI Kant said the Supreme Court could never deny a hearing to any litigant and explained that only a one-page representation had been placed before the top court instead of a duly filed writ petition.
"It was reported wrongly that the Supreme Court declined to hear the petition. The Supreme Court can never deny hearing of any case. It's my commitment… we are available 24 hours," he said.
Explaining the circumstances, the CJI said, "If I have not got the petition in the first place, what hearing would I give? If they give a one-page letter and seek a hearing on it, that's not the way. We can't violate the Supreme Court's process of filing a petition. I told them they should file the petition properly."
He added that the petitioners wanted an immediate hearing despite not following the prescribed procedure. "So, I had to send a message to them to file a proper petition," the CJI said, adding that the Supreme Court had "welcomed" the petitions once they were filed in the prescribed manner.
"The law is supreme. We have to follow it. I want to tell the citizens of the country that the Supreme Court will do everything in its power under the law to give justice to anyone who faces any kind of injustice," he said.
Earlier in the day, CJI Kant had made a similar clarification in open court, refuting reports that the Supreme Court had declined to list a petition concerning the alleged police action against students during the recent 'Sansad Chalo' march. The CJI said no writ petition had been filed before the apex court and that only a representation had been submitted.
"In the last two days, a completely false statement was made that a matter was filed... Till morning 10 a.m., not a single page has been filed. It was one representation. How can I treat the representation as a writ petition?" the CJI observed.
The CJI said he had verified the position with the Supreme Court Registry before making the clarification.
The clarification came two days after the CJI-led Bench declined an oral request for urgent listing of a matter alleging police brutality against students protesting over the alleged NEET-UG 2026 paper leak.
During the mentioning, the CJI Kant-led Bench had remarked, "Please don't waste our time and don't waste yours. Your time is more valuable than ours." When the counsel referred to videos purportedly showing police action against protesters, the apex court had said, "We are not interested in videos. We don't have time to watch."
According to the representation addressed to CJI Kant, advocate Narendra Mishra had sought the Supreme Court's suo motu intervention under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging violations of fundamental rights during the handling of protests over the alleged NEET-UG 2026 paper leak.
However, later on Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear next week two petitions alleging excessive use of police force against students participating in protests across the country over examination paper leaks.
The matter was mentioned before the CJI Kant-led Bench by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who informed the top court that two petitions had now been formally filed and diary numbers had been generated.
"There are two petitions dealing with the violence that took place across the country on the students' protest," Sankaranarayanan submitted, adding that police excesses against students were continuing and required immediate judicial intervention.
Taking note of the submissions, the CJI-led Bench said, "Let it be listed, we will entertain." When the senior counsel reiterated the urgency, the CJI directed that the petitions be listed for hearing on Monday, July 27.
Advertisement