The Supreme Court on Monday (March 9, 2026) strongly reprimanded a lawyer and asked why he wanted to hurt the sentiments of the Jain community. The lawyer has filed a petition and appealed that the Supreme Court should direct to form a committee which will investigate whether onion and garlic are really tamasic food. The court reprimanded the lawyer and said that such petitions increase the burden of the courts.
According to the report of Live Law, when this petition came before the bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, the CJI became very angry after hearing the appeal of the lawyer. Advocate Sachin Gupta himself appeared as a party. CJI Surya Kant asked him why he wanted to hurt the sentiments of the Jain community.
On CJI’s question, the lawyer said, ‘Because this is a very common problem. A couple in Gujarat got divorced just because of the use of onion in their food. However, the bench was extremely angry at the arguments of the lawyer and the PIL. The court warned the lawyer that the next time he filed such a petition, action could be taken against him.
CJI Surya Kant said, ‘Next time you bring such a petition, you will see what we can do.’ This petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, in which it was demanded that the Supreme Court should form a committee and investigate whether onion comes in tamasic food or what negative elements are there in it. The petitioner also said that people of Jain community do not eat onion, garlic and root vegetables, they consider them as Tamasic food.
Apart from this, Advocate Sachin Gupta had also filed three more PILs, but the court rejected them also. In one petition, directions were sought to regulate harmful substances in liquor and tobacco, in the second petition, directions were sought to make registration of property mandatory and in the third petition, directions were sought regarding the declaration of classical languages. The court rejected these petitions and said that such petitions increase the burden of the courts. The court said that if the petitioners were not lawyers, exemplary fine would have been imposed on them.
