Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, strongly attacked one of the petitioners, after learning that his brother had been contacted over a court order issued in the case.
Hearing the matter, the ICC wondered why a contempt case had not been filed against the petitioner’s father, who was said to have made the call.
According to a report in Living lawSpeaking about the petitioner’s counsel, the ICC expressed strong disapproval, saying: “Why is no contempt case filed against your client? He dares to phone my brother and tell him how did the ICC issue this order? He will dictate the order to me?” The CJI added.
Read also | ‘As if the victim were a table’: Supreme Court slams Gurugram police over lapses in 4-year-old girl rape case
He went on to warn that such actions would not be tolerated: “You have to investigate, and then as an advisor, you first have to withdraw! Even if he is hiding outside India, I know how to deal with this kind of people. I would never dare do that. I have dealt with this kind of elements for the past 23 years.”
The lawyer apologizes and says he was unaware of the call
The petitioner’s lawyer told the court that he was not aware of the alleged behavior of the petitioner’s father and apologized for the incident.
The controversy arose while hearing a case filed by two candidates from Haryana seeking admission to a postgraduate medical course under the Buddhist minority quota in a medical college in Uttar Pradesh. Living law.
Read also | LPG supplies will be cut off for those who refuse to switch PNG where available: Govt
This institution was reportedly declared an educational institution for Buddhist minorities, and the candidates claimed eligibility on the grounds that they had converted to Buddhism.
The report added that in January, a judicial body led by the International Judicial Committee expressed doubts about the veracity of the alleged conversions and ordered an investigation into the minority testimonies submitted by the petitioners.
The issue came up again on Wednesday, when the court was informed of the alleged phone call, sparking a strong reaction from the ICJ.
