Today, On 9th March, The Supreme Court of India dismissed five frivolous PILs filed by Advocate Sachin Gupta, including a plea seeking a scientific probe into whether onions and garlic carry “tamasic” energy. Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked sharply, “Aadhi raat ko yeh sab petition draft karte ho kya?”, criticizing the petitions as vague, frivolous and baseless.
The Supreme Court dismissed five frivolous Public Interest Litigations lodged by a single lawyer, including one that requested a scientific inquiry into whether onions and garlic possess “tamasic” energy, and asked if he prepared them late at night.
The Court asked,
“Aadhi raat ko yeh sab petition draft karte ho kya?”
Chief Justice Surya Kant criticized Advocate Sachin Gupta, calling the PILs “vague, frivolous and baseless.”
The bench, which also included Justice Joymalya Bagchi, reproached Gupta for submitting multiple PILs.
One petition sought the formation of a committee to study what constitutes “tamasic” or negative qualities in onion and garlic, citing the Jain community’s dietary practice of avoiding onion, garlic and root vegetables as these are considered “tamasic.”
The CJI asked Gupta, who appeared in person,
“Why do you want to hurt the sentiments of the Jain community?”
Gupta responded that the matter was of common interest and mentioned an alleged divorce in Gujarat reportedly linked to using onions in food.
Expressing sharp disapproval, the CJI warned,
“Next time you come up with this kind of frivolous petition, you will see what we will do.”
The bench also threw out four other PILs filed by Gupta: one seeking regulation of allegedly harmful content in alcohol and tobacco products, another asking for mandatory property registration, and a further petition requesting guidelines on declaring classical languages.
The court said the petitions’ reliefs were vague and legally unsupported.
The bench remarked, noting the poor drafting,
“This petition is another example of non-application of the mind. The prayers are vague and baseless,” .
The CJI added that he would have imposed exemplary costs on the petitioner had Gupta not been an advocate.
Case Title: SACHIN GUPTA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.