The petitioner told the court that this is a common problem and in Gujarat a couple got divorced due to the use of onion and garlic.

The Supreme Court on Monday (March 9, 2026) reprimanded a lawyer, asking him why he sought to hurt the sentiments of the Jain community. The lawyer had filed a petition urging the Supreme Court to direct the formation of a committee to investigate whether onions and garlic are truly tamasic foods. The court reprimanded the lawyer, stating that such petitions burden the courts.

According to a Live Law report, when the petition came before a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, the CJI was deeply offended by the lawyer's plea. Lawyer Sachin Gupta, who had appeared as a party himself, questioned him about his intention to hurt the sentiments of the Jain community.

In response to the CJI's question, the lawyer replied, "Because this is a very common problem. In Gujarat, a couple divorced simply because onions were used in their food." However, the bench was displeased with the lawyer's arguments and the public interest petition. The court warned the lawyer that if he filed such a petition again, action could be taken against him.

CJI Surya Kant said, "Next time you bring such a petition, you'll see what we can do." The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, demanded that the Supreme Court form a committee to investigate whether onions constitute tamasic foods and what negative elements they contain. The petitioner also stated that members of the Jain community do not eat onions, garlic, and root vegetables, considering them tamasic foods.

Advocate Sachin Gupta also filed three additional public interest litigations, but the court dismissed them as well. One petition sought directions to regulate harmful substances in alcohol and tobacco, another sought directions to make property registration mandatory, and a third sought directions regarding the declaration of classical languages. The court dismissed these petitions, stating that such petitions burden the courts. The court added that if the petitioners were not lawyers, they would have been subject to exemplary fines.

PC:ABPNews