New Delhi, Aug. 12 -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought responses from the Centre and other authorities on a plea seeking a CBI probe into alleged fake advocates, fraudulent law degrees and activities associated with the "Cockroach Janta Party" (CJP) -- a satirical online movement that emerged following observations made by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant during a court hearing in May. A bench comprising CJI Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notice to the Union government, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), the Bar Council of India (BCI) and CBI on a petition filed by advocate Raja Choudhary, who appeared as a party-in-person. The plea also seeks examination of what it describes as the "commercial exploitation" and monetised circulation of oral observations made during Supreme Court proceedings, alleging that portions of the May 15 courtroom exchange were selectively clipped and subsequently turned into memes, videos, mimicry, political branding and commercial content. The petition makes it clear that it does not seek to curb criticism of the judiciary, democratic dissent, satire or free speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Instead, it alleges "organised commercial exploitation", trademark appropriation and monetised circulation of courtroom observations, arguing that oral exchanges during judicial proceedings cannot be detached from their context and converted into commercial or political digital property. The controversy traces back to proceedings before a bench headed by CJI Kant on May 15, when the court was considering concerns relating to professional standards in the legal profession and the alleged entry of persons holding fake or fraudulent law degrees. During the hearing, the CJI had expressed concern over unemployed young lawyers moving away from the legal profession towards social media and RTI activism, and had used the expression "cockroaches" while describing such persons. The remarks drew considerable attention online and were subsequently circulated widely in clipped videos and memes. The CJI later clarified that the observation was not directed at unemployed young people or genuine lawyers unable to find work, but at persons allegedly entering professions on the basis of forged qualifications and fake degrees. The petition filed before the Supreme Court now contends that portions of the courtroom exchange were selectively extracted from the proceedings and circulated without the context. It further alleges that the controversy was subsequently converted into a vehicle for branding, publicity, online engagement and commercial activity....