Supreme Court 
News

New type of fraud: Supreme Court on 'Jaat Punia' man converting to Buddhism, seeking minority reservation

The Court directed the Haryana government to apprise it of the guidelines for issuance of a minority certificate.

Debayan Roy

The Supreme Court on Wednesday took serious objection to a man from an upper caste Hindu background seeking minority reservation after converting to Buddhism [Nikhil Kumar Punia vs. Union of India].

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi termed it a "new type of fraud".

The Court was hearing a petition by one Nikhil Kumar Punia seeking admission on the ground of being a minority candidate.

"You are a Punia? What minority are you? Let me ask this bluntly now. Which Punia are you?" CJI Kant asked.

"Jaat punia," the counsel for the petitioner replied.

"Then how minority?" the Bench queried.

"Converted to Buddhism. That is my right," the counsel said,.

"Wow! This is a new type of fraud," the CJI remarked.

CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi

The Court then proceeded to direct the Haryana government to apprise it of the guidelines for issuance of a minority certificate and whether upper caste general category candidates can get a minority certificate by claiming to have converted to Buddhism.

"Let the Chief Secretary of Haryana inform: What are the guidelines for issuing a minority certificate? Is it permissible for an upper class general category candidate who is above economically weaker sections of society, especially when they declared themselves as general in the last application, and then declared themselves as Buddhist minority," the order said.

[Read Live Coverage]

Touchstone Partners, Spice Route Legal act on Nova IVF's acquisition of Craft Fertility Centre

Allahabad High Court seeks data from Collectors on private firearms; flags display of weapons on social media

Added by mistake: Rajasthan High Court deletes its comments from recent verdict critical of Transgender Bill

Wadia Ghandy & Co elevates 9 lawyers to Partnership

Redefining ‘pendency’ under IBC 2016: A doctrinal shift in Section 60(2) jurisprudence

SCROLL FOR NEXT