Supreme Court Reprimands Advocate Who Filed Petition Seeking FIR Against PM & HM For Enacting CAA

The Supreme Court today, while staying the Rajasthan High Court's order imposing costs of 50,000 Rs on the petitioner, refused to entertain a plea by the advocate seeking to file an FIR against constitutional functionaries for passing the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymaly Bagchi was hearing the challenge against the Rajasthan High Court order, which slapped a cost of ₹50,000 on the advocate for filing a 'frivolous' petition seeking an FIR against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Minister of Home Affairs Amit Shah, MP Ravi Shankar Prasad and others over the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019.

At the outset, the bench asked how it was under the procedure to register an FIR against the constitutional functionaries for passing a law which may or may not be unconstitutional. 

Justice Baghci explained to the petitioner, " You may have a difference of opinion on the political and social attitude of the various social organisations, that difference does not constitute a crime. Where is the crime?....for argument's sake, the main question is if the Parliament passes a law which is against the Constitution, does it amount to a crime? You are a lawyer, please ask yourself!" 

"If a lawyer comes and file such a petition, what is expected of the legal profession?" Justice Bagchi wondered.

During the hearing, the petitioner revealed that he was enrolled in the Punjab and Haryana Bar Council. The CJI expressed, " Oh, you are from Punjab & Haryana (bar)? Then, who committed this mistake of giving a license to you? I am not responsible for that." 

The CJI stressed that, despite being a lawyer, the petitioner's frivolous petitions would make others question the credibility of the legal professionals 

"Please do not file these kinds of frivolous petitions. You are a lawyer; people still take the legal fraternity seriously. If you advise someone, people will believe it, and when you indulge in filling such matters, how will people trust you?" 

The petitioner submitted, "they are implementing the two objects of the RSS instead of implementing the contents of the Constitution of India." 

Displeased with the legal approach adopted by the advocate, the bench initially warned that they would increase the costs to 5 Lakhs from 50,000 Rs. 

The bench proceeded to dismiss the petition. The court noted that the advocate undertook not to file such petitions again and stayed the imposition of costs against him on the same condition. The relevant part of the order states: 

"The petitioner, in person and practising advocate, having realised his bona fide mistake, wants to withdraw his petition; he also undertakes not to file any such complaint, for any court case...This court will take a lenient view to exempt him from the costs levied by the High Court"

"Taking into consideration the repentance shown by the petitioner along with the undertaking that he shall not file any other petitions against the respondents...we direct that paragraph 16 of the HC order shall remain in abeyance indefinitely, save and except it will automatically stand revived if the petitioner is directly or indirectly in breach of the undertaking."

Notably, paragraph 16 of the impugned order states : 

"As a final result, the instant petition is hereby dismissed with costs, which is quantified to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousands Only), payable by the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to deposit the cost before the Litigants Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks, by way of a Demand Draft in the name of Registrar General, LWFA, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur. Respondents are at liberty to prosecute the petitioner by way of availing a civil or criminal remedy, as available under the law, if so desired." 

Before The High Court

The High Court's single bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal imposed the costs in the petition filed by Advocate Puran Chander Sen. Sen had argued that the enactment of the CAA resulted in protests by the affected persons across the country, which resulted in the death and injury of many. He also pointed out that several persons were locked up in jail and the country witnessed an environment of hatred, animosity, and public disorder.

Sen had thus sought the registration of an FIR against the Prime Minister, the Home Minister ,and the then Law Minister for offences under Section 302, 323, 341, 344 read with Sections 120B, 409, 153A, 153B, 218, 109 read with Section 193 and 195 of the IPC.

Since no FIR had been registered based on his complaint, Sen had approached the Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh Camp at Govindgarh, District Alwar. When the Magistrate rejected his application for registration of FIR, Sen approached the Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, District Alwar, who also dismissed the criminal revision petition. Sen then approached the Rajasthan High Court.

Case Details : PURAN CHANDER SEN Versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS| SLP(Crl) No. 1445/2026