Video Summary - सुप्रीम कोर्ट में सुनवाई के बाद कॉकरोच पार्टी की प्रेस कॉन्फ्रेंस/COCKROCHES NEW PRESS CONFRENCE

Summary of main points (from Cockroach Party / “Cockroaches” press conference commentary)

The speakers say that after Supreme Court hearings, they want FIRs against protesters to be quashed/removed across the country under Article 142, arguing the court has repeatedly indicated it wants this done.
They claim the Union Government is resisting/delaying this, accusing it of “playing games” to keep the matter pending.

They acknowledge that police brutality action should occur.
However, they insist the immediate priority is to withdraw all FIRs that were reportedly promised to be removed if protesters ended or paused demonstrations.

They argue any Supreme Court–constituted HPC must be independent, with members of high integrity and unimpeachable independence.
They claim there is already “a question mark” over the Supreme Court if it appoints a controversial/‘questionable’ committee.
They specifically demand that if committee members (including a retired judge) face questions about their past, the movement will not accept the committee and will challenge its credibility.

Speakers say Delhi Police affidavits claim 240 jawans were injured and that police used lathi charge only when “required.”
They argue police should provide medical reports and complete data, including who was injured and how.
They add that Delhi Police brutality is widely visible online and dismiss police claims as potentially strategic (i.e., not admitting wrongdoing).

They state that face recognition is against the right to privacy.
They question why authorities waited for hearings yet later implied action would follow.

They strongly oppose labeling protesters as “terrorists,” “Naxals,” or similar terms.
They cite the case of “Same Abdul” (described as a young boy), claiming he refused compensation and instead asked for a school in his father’s name, using this as evidence (from their perspective) that the government’s “terror” framing is irrational.

They warn that if the government does not honor its commitments (including FIR withdrawal and compensation), they will convene a National Working Committee national meeting to decide next steps.

They mention that the father of a CJP worker was murdered in Bengal.
They describe claims by the killers that the son was linked to a terror organization and funded by Pakistan, presenting this as part of the same “terror-labeling” pattern.

They criticize statements where the Prime Minister uses terms like “mindful Naxal.”
They argue such labeling is diversionary and does not address reforms or children’s education needs.

Speakers claim protests were recorded by people on mobile phones, arguing it is difficult to fabricate or manipulate afterward.
They allege political leaders contradicted the reality of events (e.g., statements that “no bullets were fired”), contrasting those claims with publicly circulating evidence.

They mention that, related to their school-fix campaign, the Rajasthan government reportedly banned going to schools and also restricted photography/videography.
They claim these restrictions are intended to prevent exposure of failures in government schools and limit documentation.

Mr. Tushar Mehta (Solicitor General, named in the subtitles)
Mr. Sudhanshu Trivedi (named)
Abhijit Deepak (named)
JP Nadda (named)
Prime Minister of India (referred to; name not given in subtitles)
CJI / Chief Justice of India (referred to; name not given in subtitles)
Home Minister (referred to; name not given in subtitles)
Dastak (channel/brand mentioned at the end; not clearly a person)
Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) spokespersons (group referenced; individual names limited to those above)