The Supreme Court on Wednesday pulled up a litigant over the conduct of the petitioner’s father, calling (phoned) the brother of the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, questioning an order passed on January 28 relating to the petitioner, Jaat, by caste, converting to Buddhism to avail reservation benefits accruing to a minority community.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice Surya Kant flagged the incident in open court, indicating that an attempt had been made to question a judicial proceeding. “He calls up my brother and asks him how the Chief Justice of India has passed this order. Will he dictate us? This is his conduct,” CJI said.
The Bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, remarked that such conduct was wholly unacceptable and raised the issue of initiating contempt proceedings against the person involved. The Court questioned the petitioner’s counsel on whether he was aware of the incident and that the seriousness of the conduct of the petitioner’s father warranted initiation of criminal contempt against him.
“You tell us why we should not initiate criminal contempt against the father of your client. Are you aware of what he has done? Should I disclose it in open court?” the CJI told the petitioner’s advocate.
The matter pertains to a petition filed by one Nikhil Kumar Punia, who claimed entitlement to minority reservation benefits after converting to Buddhism despite being born into an upper-caste Jat Hindu family. When the case was first taken up on January 28, the CJI Kant had described it as a “new form of fraud”
In the course of the hearing on January 28, CJI Kant while questioning the petitioner’s caste background asked, ““You are a Punia? What minority are you? Let me ask this bluntly now. Which Punia are you?”
When the advocate for the petitioner said that petitioner was a “Jaat Punia”, the CJI asked “Then how (you are a) minority.”
Thereafter, the court sought a response from the Haryana government on the policy governing issuance of minority certificates and whether such benefits could be claimed in these circumstances.
At today’s hearing, taking strong exception to petitioner’s father calling up CJI’s brother to question the order passed on January 28, the Chief Justice said that the last 23 years as a judge he has dealt with many such elements and he was not going to transfer the case to another bench. “Nobody dares to do this. And you think “I will transfer the case because of this? I have dealt with such elements for the last 23 years,” the CJI said.
Expressing regrets, the petitioner’s advocate said that he was unaware of the incident.
Adjourning the matter, the Court directed the Haryana government to file its compliance report in pursuance to its January 28, order. It also indicated that if the compliance report was not filed, the State’s Chief Secretary would be required to remain present before the Court on the next date of hearing – May 4, 2026.
In the January 28, hearing of the matter, the court had directed the Chief Secretary of Haryana to furnish information on (i) What are the guidelines for issuing the minority community certificate, (ii) Is it permissible that upper class general category candidates, who are not a member of the Economically Weaker Sections of the society and who disclosed their identity as general category candidates in 2025 NEET PG examination, be permitted to convert into Buddhist minority community? (iii) If not, what was the basis for the Sub Divisional Officer (C) to issue the subject certificate? And (iv) The further directions will depend upon the status report that is required to be submitted by the State of Haryana within two weeks.