CJI Surya Kant warns of contempt after litigant’s father contacts family, sparking Supreme Court outrage. Case involves alleged minority quota fraud, judicial interference, and strict observations on religious conversion and Scheduled Caste status under Indian law.
In a stern assertion of judicial independence, Surya Kant, the Chief Justice of India, on Wednesday rebuked a litigant’s father for allegedly attempting to influence court proceedings by contacting his family member. The incident, which unfolded during a hearing in the Supreme Court of India, has raised serious concerns over interference in the judicial process.
The controversy emerged while the apex court was hearing a case related to postgraduate medical admissions under a minority quota. Expressing strong displeasure, CJI Kant questioned the audacity of the litigant’s relative, stating, “Why should there not be contempt proceedings against him? He dares to call my brother and ask how the CJI has passed the order? Will he dictate terms to me?”
The Chief Justice directed the counsel representing the petitioner to verify the allegations immediately. He also emphasized the ethical responsibility of lawyers, warning that they should withdraw from cases if their clients engage in misconduct. “Even if he hides outside India, I know how to deal with such people. Never ever attempt this again. I have dealt with such elements for the last 23 years,” he remarked, signaling possible criminal contempt action.
The counsel appearing in the matter expressed ignorance about the alleged conduct and tendered an unconditional apology before the court.
Medical Admission Row Under Scrutiny
The case at the center of the controversy involves two candidates from Haryana seeking admission to a postgraduate medical course in Uttar Pradesh under the Buddhist minority quota. The petitioners claimed eligibility based on religious conversion supported by certificates issued by a Sub-Divisional Officer.
However, the bench, also comprising Joymalya Bagchi, had earlier raised serious doubts about the authenticity and timing of the conversion. The court noted that both candidates had appeared in the NEET-PG examination as General Category applicants and had not claimed Economically Weaker Section (EWS) benefits.
“This is a new kind of fraud. Don’t make us say more,” the court had observed in a previous hearing, cautioning against misuse of minority status for securing admissions.
Further scrutiny revealed that the candidates belonged to the “Punia” community, traditionally not classified under the claimed minority category. The apex court questioned how individuals from such backgrounds could seek benefits under a minority quota after multiple attempts as general category candidates.
Court Seeks Policy Clarity
Recognizing the broader implications of the issue, the Supreme Court directed the Chief Secretary of Haryana to provide detailed guidelines governing the issuance of minority certificates. The court specifically sought clarification on whether candidates who had previously declared themselves as General Category and were above the EWS threshold could later claim minority status.
This directive aims to address potential loopholes in the certification process and ensure that reservation benefits are not misused.
Separate Ruling on Religious Conversion and SC Status
In a related development, the Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling on the legal consequences of religious conversion concerning Scheduled Caste status. A bench comprising Prashant Kumar Mishra and N. V. Anjaria upheld a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
The court ruled that individuals who convert to religions other than Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism lose their Scheduled Caste status immediately under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.
“The bar is absolute and admits no exception,” the bench observed, adding that a person cannot simultaneously profess another religion while claiming benefits reserved for Scheduled Castes.
Judicial Integrity at the Forefront
The developments highlight the judiciary’s firm stance against any attempt to undermine its independence. The sharp remarks by CJI Surya Kant underscore the seriousness with which the Supreme Court views any external interference, particularly in sensitive matters involving admissions and reservation policies.
| Also Read: Rahul Gandhi Explodes ‘CJP’ Claim, Targets BJP-LDF Alliance |
Legal experts believe that the court’s warning of contempt proceedings sends a strong message that attempts to influence judicial decisions—whether directly or indirectly—will not be tolerated under any circumstances.
