A passing remark by the Chief Justice of India appears to have triggered a national debate that is far bigger than the word that sparked it. While commenting on the growing tendency to attack constitutional institutions through social media, the Chief Justice reportedly referred to certain elements as “cockroaches.” Predictably, outrage arrived faster than facts.
In today’s age, a controversial phrase no longer remains a phrase. It instantly becomes a hashtag, a campaign, a victimhood narrative, and occasionally, a business model.
One self-styled activist, projecting himself as the voice of the “unemployed youth,” reportedly floated a platform called the “Cockroaches Party” in response. He is entirely within his rights to do so. Freedom of expression allows citizens to criticize, mock, parody, and even exaggerate. But freedom of expression is not freedom from scrutiny, criticism, or consequences under the law.
That is where the real debate begins.
Unlike newspapers, television channels, and other regulated media entities, social media platforms often operate in a largely unregulated ecosystem. A newspaper in India cannot simply publish anything without accountability. It faces legal obligations, regulatory oversight, and identifiable ownership. Social media, meanwhile, frequently resembles a global carnival where anonymity wears a mask and accountability is shown the exit door.
The irony is impossible to miss. The very people who routinely attack institutions demand institutional protection the moment criticism comes their way.
India has repeatedly faced this challenge. Several overseas-based digital platforms have discovered that India is not merely a market of billions but also a sovereign nation with laws. Courts and governments alike have occasionally had to remind multinational technology companies that operating in India is not a licence to ignore Indian law. Content that threatens public order, national security, or communal harmony cannot hide forever behind the convenient shield of “platform neutrality.”
The recent action against objectionable online platforms and content reflects precisely that principle. One may debate the methods, but no democracy is obligated to tolerate material that actively promotes disorder, violence, or instability.
Yet what is even more fascinating is the reaction from sections of the political opposition. Having suffered repeated electoral setbacks, some appear increasingly comfortable romanticizing street unrest whenever electoral arithmetic fails them. There is a growing tendency among certain political actors to glorify protest not as a democratic instrument but as a shortcut to power.
The message seems simple: if the ballot disappoints, perhaps chaos can compensate.
That is a dangerous proposition.
Democracies survive because governments are changed through votes, not viral campaigns. Social media trends are not constitutional amendments. Hashtags are not election results. And influencers, despite what some may believe, are not parallel institutions of governance.
The cockroach metaphor, therefore, may have struck a nerve because it exposed an uncomfortable reality. Cockroaches do not create problems because they are loud. They create problems because they thrive in dark corners where accountability is absent. The issue was never about insects. It was about behaviour.
Unfortunately, in modern politics and digital activism, some individuals seem convinced that provocation is courage, disruption is patriotism, and outrage is intellect. Every institution is suspect. Every verdict is biased. Every setback is a conspiracy.
Such thinking does not strengthen democracy. It corrodes it.
India certainly needs stronger digital governance frameworks, clearer accountability mechanisms, and faster enforcement against those who deliberately spread misinformation, incite unrest, or undermine public institutions. Not because criticism should be silenced, but because responsibility must accompany freedom.
After all, a healthy democracy welcomes dissent. But when dissent begins masquerading as disorder, society has every right to reach for the constitutional equivalent of pest control.
And unlike social media outrage, the rule of law never goes out of fashion.
