The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday expressed grave displeasure and warned of criminal contempt proceedings after it was revealed that the father of a litigant allegedly telephoned the brother of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant to question a judicial order.
The revelation came during a hearing before a Bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The CJI disclosed in open court that the petitioner’s father had sought to challenge the court’s authority by contacting his family member.
“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 Kant observed, termed the act as “sheer misconduct.”
Background of the Case
The matter involves a petition filed by one Nikhil Kumar Punia. Punia, who belongs to the Jaat Puniya community (categorized as an upper-caste Hindu background), had approached the court seeking minority reservation benefits after converting to Buddhism.
During the initial hearing on January 28, the Bench had expressed serious reservations about the plea. Terming it a “new type of fraud,” the court had questioned how a candidate from the general category could claim minority status through conversion for the purpose of reservation. Consequently, the court had directed the Haryana government to provide clear guidelines on the issuance of minority certificates in such instances.
Confrontation in Open Court
As the proceedings commenced on Wednesday, CJI Kant confronted the petitioner’s counsel regarding the extra-judicial attempt to influence the case.
“Now you tell us why we should not initiate criminal contempt against the father of your client. You are not serious in the matter. Are you aware what he has done? Should I disclose it in open court?” the CJI asked.
The petitioner’s counsel pleaded ignorance, stating, “I am not aware, Your Lordship. We have not received any report.”
Refusing to take the matter lightly, the CJI suggested that the lawyer should consider withdrawing from the case due to the client’s behavior. “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 remarked, adding that the court knows how to handle such interference even if the individual is currently outside the country.
State Compliance and Future Hearing
Beyond the conduct of the litigant, the court also noted that the State of Haryana had failed to file its compliance report regarding the guidelines for minority certificates, as ordered previously.
The Bench issued a stern warning to the state authorities. “Let Mr. Singhal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana, take instructions and submit a compliance report of our earlier order. If not, the Chief Secretary of the State of Haryana shall remain personally present in Court on the next date,” the Court directed.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing next week.
