'Targeting Govt': Rajasthan High Court Slaps ₹50K Cost On Advocate Seeking FIR Against PM Modi, Amit Shah, Others

Rajasthan High Court has slapped a cost of ₹50,000 on Advocate for filing a 'frivolous' petition seeking 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.

Justice Sudesh Bansal observed that the averments in the plea were vague, non-specific and made to target the Government, for one or the other reasons.

"Petitioner, being an advocate, cannot be expected to make such bald, derogatory and serious allegations against the Government and its Ministry of Council. Such a sweeping allegation made by the petitioner against the respondents is nothing, but an attempt to malign their image and reputation as much as an attempt to create a hatred communal violence and such an action at the behest of Advocate cannot be appreciated, rather deserves to be deprecated," the bench observed.

The Court said Petitioner has not been able to show a single averment or reason from his application, to invoke the jurisdiction of Police. It added,

"An Advocate, before initiating any litigation in public spirit or in the public interest, is at least expected to verify the factual matrix of the subject matter and to see whether such factual matrix is supported by any document or evidence or not and further, to act within parameters of law and not to act in an arbitrary and whimsical manner just to gain a cheap popularity. An Advocate, being attached with a noble profession and society, owes certain additional responsibilities towards society than an ordinary person. Minimum expectation from an Advocate is to abide by the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India to maintain the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette and not to fomenting of bogus litigation."

Calling it "creative thoughts of a biased and adulterated mind", Justice Sudesh Bansal said that a litigant cannot be permitted to misuse the judicial process by filing frivolous petitions. Justice Bansal also noted that as and when the courts come across such frivolous, vexatious, and bogus petitions by a litigant, that too an advocate, it should be dismissed at the very threshold and cost should be imposed on such a non-bona fide litigant.

"It is hereby further observed that it is a settled canon of administration of justice that no litigant has a right to unlimited drought upon the Court time, just in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. A litigant cannot be permitted to misuse judicial process by filing frivolous petitions and easy access to justice cannot be allowed to be used as a license to file misconceived and frivolous petitions," the court said.

The court was hearing 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. Whne 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. 

The Advocate General opposed the plea and submitted that the Magistrate had rightly dismissed the plea since the alleged incidents of violence did not take place within the territorial limits of the court. He also argued that the petition was wholly misconceived.

The Solicitor General of India and Additional Solicitor General also argued that the petition was devoid of merit and had been filed to gain cheap publicity. It was argued that the Act was passed after following the legislative procedure, and neither the Prime Minister nor the Home Minister could be blamed for the violence that took place 

The SG also argued that the petitioner, being a lawyer, should follow the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette and should not be filing such bogus petition like a layman. 

The court agreed and noted that the petition had made general allegations without any specification to impute the Prime Minister, Home Minister or the Law Minister. The court added that there was no basis to connect the alleged violence with the enactment of the CAA. The court added that without any materials, it could not be believed that the law and order situation arose as an outburst of the passing of the Act. 

" An arbitrary, concocted and false belief of the petitioner, without any basis, is not suffice to level such a serious allegation. Merely on the basis of averments of the petitioner, made in the application dated 12.10.2020, prima facie, it cannot be believed that even if any law and public disorder situation arose in the country, same is outburst of passing of the Amendment Bill – 2019. All such averments, neither attract jurisdiction of Police Station, Govindgarh, nor prima facie give rise to occurrence of any cognizable offences," the court observed.

Thus, finding it to be a frivolous plea, the court dismissed it and directed the petitioner to deposit the cost before the Litigants Welfare Fund within a period of 4 weeks. 

Counsel for the Petitioner: Party in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Senior Advocate/ Solicitor General of India, assisted by Mr. Kapil Vyas through VC, Mr.R.D. Rastogi, Senior Advocate/ Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. C.S. Sinha, Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Rajat Sharma & Mr.Chinmay Surolia Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Senior Advocate/Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma, Mr. Tanay Goyal, Mr. Dhriti Laddha, Ms. Harshita Thakral through VC Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, Government Advocate cum Additional Advocate General, Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore and Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Puran Chander Sen v. The State of Rajasthan and Others

Case NO: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3255/2025