A lawyers’ body has written to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant questioning the manner in which a plea filed by Noida District Magistrate Medha Roopam was listed before the Supreme Court, alleging that the matter was “specially assigned to a particular bench” despite the prevailing roster for such cases.
The association also raised concerns over the muting of live proceedings during the hearing.
The Lawyers Association for Constitution (LAFC), in a letter to the CJI, asked why Roopam’s challenge to an Allahabad High Court order was heard by a bench of Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and N Kotiswar Singh.
As per LiveLaw, matters connected with preventive detention arising from the Noida workers’ protest were pending before a bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna, as per the roster in force from July 13, 2026.
The association specifically highlighted that Roopam is the daughter of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and argued that preferential treatment to a matter involving a senior public official’s family member could set a wrong precedent.
“The special listing before a particular bench has not enhanced confidence in the judicial process,” the letter said.
The LAFC also flagged the decision to mute the audio of the proceedings. During the September 23 hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for Roopam, and senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi for the Uttar Pradesh government. However, the audio of the virtual proceedings was muted mid-way through the hearing.
The controversy relates to Roopam’s challenge to a September 2 Allahabad High Court judgment concerning the detention of Delhi University student and activist Akriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act in connection with a workers’ protest in Noida in April.
The High Court had quashed Chaudhary’s detention and directed that Rs 5 lakh compensation be paid to her, with the amount to be recovered from the salaries of Roopam and other officials involved in the detention. The court had also made strong observations against the Noida administration.
The Supreme Court first stayed the Allahabad High Court’s order. Then it later revised its order to clarify that the stay applies only to the High Court’s remarks against Roopam and its order on the Rs 5 lakh compensation to be deducted from her salary. The High Court’s decision to quash Chaudhary’s NSA detention remains unchanged.
CJP’s Saurav Das Reacts
The issue has now drawn a reaction from youth-led movement, the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), with spokesperson Saurav Das linking the development to the broader debate around Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission.
“Since Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar is in the news, I have some very important but sad news to share about a Supreme Court judge,” Das said in a post on X.
Referring to Justice Sharma’s role in the Medha Roopam matter, Das alleged that the case had been listed “out of turn” and questioned the muting of the proceedings.
“ALARMING,” Das wrote, alleging that there had been “no explanation from the judge’s side” for the muting of the proceedings.
Das Questions Justice Sharma’s Role
Das also referred to a separate Supreme Court development involving Justice SC Sharma.
On September 23, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered a split verdict on the CEC appointment row. The court was hearing petitions challenging the 2023 law that replaced the CJI on the three-member CEC selection panel with a “Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister”.
The court was examining whether the petitions should be referred to a larger Constitution Bench.
While Justice Datta, in his statement, called for the EC to be “insulated from outside control” and questioned how much independence would the EC have under the proposed mechanism, Justice Sharma held that the constitutional questions warranted consideration by a larger bench.
The matter was subsequently placed before CJI Surya Kant for consideration of an appropriate bench.
Das, in his post, also made allegations about professional engagements of Justice Sharma’s son with government departments. He said he was withholding the son’s name.