New Delhi: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Wednesday rebuked an individual who had called his brother in connection with a case related to medical admissions. The Chief Justice himself is presiding over the hearing of this matter.
A bench headed by the CJI was hearing a case involving two General Category candidates who had sought admission under the minority quota at a Buddhist medical college. The candidates had claimed that they had converted to Buddhism.
The CJI asked why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against the petitioner’s father, who had apparently made the call. The CJI told the petitioner’s counsel, “Why shouldn’t contempt proceedings be initiated against your client’s father? Do you realize what he has done, or should I spell it out in open court?”
The CJI further remarked, “How dare he call my brother and ask how the CJI passed this order? Is he going to dictate terms to me?” The CJI told the counsel, “First, you verify this, and then, as a lawyer, your primary duty is to recuse yourself from this case immediately.
If a client is engaging in misconduct—even if he is hiding somewhere outside India—I know how to deal with such people. (You are) threatening me! Never dare to do such a thing again. Sometimes you might think that I will transfer the case. I have been dealing with such elements for the past 23 years.”
The counsel submitted before the bench that he had no knowledge regarding the conduct of the petitioner’s father and tendered an apology. The bench relisted the matter for hearing. In January, the Supreme Court had strongly criticized the conversion of the two General Category candidates to Buddhism. It appeared that they had done so in order to secure admission under the minority quota in a postgraduate medical course. The Supreme Court orally observed that this move constitutes “yet another mode of fraud,” adding that such acts attempt to “usurp the rights of genuine and bona fide candidates belonging to the minority community.” During the hearing, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners argued that their clients had embraced Buddhism and submitted certificates issued by the concerned authority, asserting that they belonged to the Buddhist minority community.
