Rajasthan High Court rejected a plea seeking an FIR against PM Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah over the CAA, stating, “No prudent man can make such arbitrary, absurd and bogus allegation,” highlighting lack of evidence in the claim.
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition seeking to register a murder case against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, and former Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad in relation to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019.
Justice Sudesh Bansal imposed a cost of Rs.50,000 on Advocate Puran Chander Sen, who filed the plea.
The Court characterized Sen’s claims of murder or causing injuries as arbitrary and fabricated, noting that there was no basis to link any incidents in the country to the introduction or passage of the CAA.
The judge remarked,
“The petitioner has not mentioned any source of information or other grounds to have such a belief, hence, allegations made by the petitioner against the respondents are nothing, but his own misconception and creative thoughts of his biased and adulterated mind. No prudent man can make such an arbitrary, absurd and bogus allegation and then pray to register FIR to investigate thereupon. There are no particulars at all in the application that who all received injuries, how many were killed and where all such accidental events, if any, happened.”
In 2020, Sen, aged 74, had approached the Govindgarh police station in Alwar district, seeking the registration of a first information report (FIR) against Modi, Shah, Prasad, various journalists and certain right-wing groups under Sections 302 (murder), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
He claimed that the CAA was unconstitutional and intended to oppress Muslims and those with secular ideologies, leading to violence and casualties across the nation.
After the police declined to take action, he moved to a magistrate’s court, which rejected his plea. This decision was upheld by a sessions court, prompting Sen to approach the High Court, where his plea faced opposition from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General RD Rastogi, and Rajasthan Advocate General Rajendra Prasad.
The Court questioned how the cause of action could arise in Govindarh, Alwar, and noted that Sen’s application contained only general allegations without specifics.
It stated,
“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 remarked that the allegations seemed intended to target the government and emphasized that an advocate should not make such baseless and serious accusations.
It stated,
“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 Court further noted that advocates are expected to verify facts before initiating litigation and act within legal parameters rather than in an arbitrary manner for personal popularity.
It added,
“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.”
As a result, the Court dismissed the petition with costs and granted the respondents, including the State of Rajasthan, Modi, Shah, and Prasad, the liberty to pursue legal action against Sen if they choose.
The Court ordered,
“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.”
Sen represented himself in court, while advocates Kapil Vyas, CS Sinha, Kunal Sharma, Rajat Sharma, and Chinmay Surolia represented the Union of India.
Advocate General Rajendra Prasad was also supported by advocates Sheetanshu Sharma, Tanay Goyal, Dhriti Laddha, Harshita Thakral, Rajesh Choudhary, Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, and Vivek Choudhary for the State of Rajasthan.
Case Title: Puran Chander Sen v. The State of Rajasthan
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
