"He Dares To Call My Brother; He Will Dictate Me?": CJI Warns Of Criminal Contempt In Medical Admission Case
CJI remarked that the court would not be intimidated by "elements" attempting to manipulate the legal process, even if they were currently outside the country.
The Supreme Court reprimanded a petitioner’s father for telephoning the Chief Justice of India's brother regarding an order.
Presiding over a matter involving medical admissions and the use of religious conversion to claim minority status, the CJI expressed deep indignation at the attempt to bypass judicial propriety, questioning why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated immediately.
The Court was hearing a plea where an individual from dominant upper-caste backgrounds in Haryana—specifically the Jat Punia community—allegedly converted to Buddhism solely to secure minority reservation benefits.
The Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi ordered, "As per the office report, a certified copy of the order dated 28.01.2026 was sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana. The office report, however, pointed out that no compliance report has been filed. No one has entered an appearance on behalf of the State of Haryana. The registry is directed to issue notice to the Advocate General to seek instructions and submit a compliance report. The Chief Secretary shall be present in court on so and so date."
The Chief Justice said, "Now you should tell us, why should we not initiate criminal contempt against the father of your client?...Are you aware what he has done, or should I disclose it in open court?...He dares to call my...brother on phone and telling how Chief Justice of India has passed this order? He will dictate me? You verify, and then as a counsel, first you should withdraw. If the client is misconducting. Even if he hides out of India, I know how to deal with these kind of people...He is threatening me? Never ever dare to do it. Sometimes you think I'll transfer the case. I have dealt with these kinds of elements for the last 23 years."
Counsel responded, "I am very sorry Sir, but I am not aware of this."
Justice Kant said, "Who is for Haryana? I think you are manipulating there(State of Haryana) also, this is what you are doing."
The bench further pulled up the State of Haryana for failing to submit a compliance report on the guidelines governing minority certificates, directing the Chief Secretary to appear in person to explain how general-category candidates are being granted such status through religious conversion.
Previously, the Court voiced concern over a "new type of fraud" involving individuals from dominant upper-caste backgrounds in Haryana converting to Buddhism solely to claim minority reservation benefits. It also sought a report from the chief secretary of Haryana as to how minority certificates are being granted and issued in the state.
During the hearing, the CJI, who also hails from the same place, questioned Punia’s social background.
“You are a Punia? What minority are you? Let me ask this bluntly now. Which Punia are you,” the CJI asked.
When counsel for the petitioner responded that he belonged to the Jaat Punia community, the CJI asked as to how he could then claim minority status.
The bench had asked the Haryana chief secretary to place on record the guidelines governing the issuance of minority certificates and to clarify whether candidates from the upper-caste general category can claim minority status by citing religious conversion.
Cause Title: Nikhil Kumar Punia and Anr v. Union of India and Others [W.P.(C) No. 21/2026]