Viral Remark Row Sparks Sharp Response from CJI Surya Kant
(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
New Delhi, May 10, 2026 – In a scathing official rebuke that signals the launch of a potential judicial probe into digital disinformation, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Surya Kant has categorically debunked a virulently casteist statement falsely attributed to him, branding it a “vile, brazen, and mischievous” fabrication designed to erode the sanctity of India’s apex court.
The CJI’s office, acting with the forensic precision of a high-stakes contempt investigation, issued a formal clarification late Sunday, dissecting the anatomy of this social media hoax. “Inventing a fictitious quote and attributing it to the highest judicial office in the country constitutes utter dishonesty, deliberate social provocation, and a flagrant disregard for constitutional values,” the statement declared, underscoring how such engineered malice strikes at the judiciary’s foundational integrity.
Justice Surya Kant further cautioned that this “irresponsible conduct” not only undermines public confidence in the judiciary but poses a direct assault on the rule of law, potentially invoking provisions under the Indian Penal Code for forgery (Section 463), defamation (Section 499), and promoting enmity between groups (Section 153A).
The clarification arrives amid a surge of viral posts on X (formerly Twitter), with the CJI’s office zeroing in on the account @UnreservedMERIT as the primary vector for this misattribution.
At the heart of the controversy lies a fabricated Hindi remark, meticulously reconstructed by investigators as follows
It maliciously posits that if a community despite producing IAS officers, IPS officers, a Chief Justice, a President, and a Prime Minister persists in viewing itself as exploited, “the fault lies not with Brahmins but with its own mindset.”
This inflammatory narrative, investigators note, was doctored to incite caste-based discord, masquerading as authoritative judicial commentary.
In a stern directive laced with the weight of judicial enforcement, the CJI warned of “strict action” against the perpetrators, including possible summons, cyber forensics tracing IP origins, and platform takedowns under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Citizens, media houses, and social media intermediaries have been put on notice.
Do not amplify this toxic contrivance, lest they risk complicity in its proliferation.
This episode underscores the judiciary’s escalating vigilance against deepfake diplomacy and casteist cyber sabotage, as the Supreme Court gears up to safeguard its voice from the shadows of anonymous agitators.
