Supreme Court Dismisses Absurd PILs, Questions Lawyer's Intent

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court dismissed five Public Interest Litigations filed by a lawyer, criticizing their frivolous nature. Among the petitions was a request for a study on whether onions and garlic have 'tamasic' energy, which sparked a humorous exchange with the Chief Justice. The court expressed strong disapproval of the vague and baseless claims made in the petitions, particularly those that could offend the Jain community's dietary beliefs. This incident highlights the importance of thoughtful legal submissions and the court's willingness to reject absurd claims.

By Narendra Chaudhary Mar 9, 2026, 14:41 IST

Supreme Court's Strong Rejection of Frivolous PILs

New Delhi: On Monday, the Supreme Court dismissed five 'frivolous' Public Interest Litigations (PILs) submitted by a single attorney, including one that requested a scientific examination of whether onions and garlic possess 'tamasic' (negative) energy. The court humorously inquired if the lawyer drafted these petitions late at night.

Chief Justice Surya Kant criticized Advocate Sachin Gupta, labeling the PILs as 'vague, frivolous, and baseless'.

The bench, which included Justice Joymalya Bagchi, expressed disapproval of the lawyer's repeated submissions of PILs.

One particular petition aimed to establish a committee to investigate what defines 'tamasic' or negative attributes in onions and garlic.

This petition referenced the dietary customs of the Jain community, which traditionally avoids these foods, viewing them as 'tamasic'.

The Chief Justice questioned Gupta's motives, asking, 'Why do you want to hurt the sentiments of the Jain community?'

In response, Gupta claimed that the issue was widespread, citing an alleged divorce in Gujarat linked to onion consumption.

The Chief Justice, visibly frustrated, warned, 'If you bring such frivolous petitions again, you will see our response.'

The bench also rejected four additional PILs from Gupta: one aimed at regulating harmful content in alcohol and tobacco, another sought mandatory property registration, and a third requested guidelines for declaring classical languages.

The court noted that the requests in these petitions were vague and lacked a solid legal basis.

The Chief Justice remarked that this petition exemplified a lack of thoughtful consideration, stating, 'The requests are vague and baseless,' and criticized the poor drafting of the filings.

He added that he would have imposed significant costs on the petitioner had he not been a lawyer.