BREAKING
Rajinikanth’s Jailer 2 Joins 500 Crore ClubCJP Leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka ReleasedSamsung Galaxy S27 leaks: Display sizes, storage and moreDeepinder Goyal’s Temple wearable pre-orders open November 1: What is it and how does it work?Tiger Shroff firing case: Mumbai Police arrest 2 more from Haryana; 10 held so farBhuvneshwar Kumar’s comeback: The role of fitness, diet and disciplineJamboo Savari marks grand finale of Mysuru Dussehra celebrationsTelangana’s Banothu Akira sets Games record to win Para Asian Games silverApple caps iPhone Duo purchases amid high demandSupreme Court stays probe against Pinarayi Vijayan in CMRL bribery case for a week
National

‘You are not Gen Z’: Delhi High Court’s light hearted exchange with CJP’s Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka

hellohimachalse@gmail.com 21 Oct 2026 1 hour ago

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court had a light-hearted exchange with Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) leaders, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, during a hearing. Justice Subramonium Prasad told the 2 young leaders that they were not part of ‘Gen Z’ after being told their ages by their counsel.

Justice Prasad asked their counsel, Abhik Chimni how old were the petitioners. The lawyer told the judge that Das was 27, while Ranka was 32-years-old.

The court then quipped, “Then you are not Gen Z.” The bench then asked, “What is Gen Z?”

The court was then told that Gen Z refers to people born after 1997. The bench then once again reiterated, “Then you are not Gen Z.”

This exchange took place when the court was hearing the CJP leader’s plea challenging the order by the Special Executive Magistrate, extending their judicial custody till October 21. The SEM court had passed the order on October 19.

This exchange inside the court, also drew a sarcastic reaction from CJP founder, Abhijeet Dipke. Sharing an image of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, he wrote, “The only person who qualifies as a Gen Z.”

Court questions petitioners legal remedy

Meanwhile, the court also questioned why the 2 petitioners chose to approach it directly, when they had another legal remedy available. It said that the 2 CJP leaders had approached it under Article 226 of the Constitution, when an alternate remedy of revision was available to challenge the magistrates order.

The court also noted that this was the second time that the 2 CJP leaders had been involved in something like this. It said, “You are a person, who has actually broken a bond.”

It observed, “Your remedy actually lies in revision.”

The court further questioned why the authorities could not ask for a stricter surety bond, when they had already breached the peace bond, twice.

The bench also said that why did the petitioners return to Jantar Mantar, when a challenge to its denotification as a protest site was still pending with the Supreme Court. It also went on to question the petitioner’s act of breaking barricades. It said that such acts could encourage others to violate prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Related News