The Supreme Court pulled up a lawyer who sought an FIR against top constitutional authorities over the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, calling the plea frivolous. The Court kept the High Court’s ₹50,000 cost order in abeyance after the petitioner expressed remorse and withdrew the case.
The Supreme Court of India on Friday heard a Special Leave Petition filed by a practicing advocate who had earlier sought registration of an FIR against top constitutional authorities over the enactment of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.
The matter was placed before a Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
The appeal challenged an order of the Rajasthan High Court which had imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioner. The High Court had dismissed his plea seeking registration of an FIR against the Prime Minister, the Union Home Minister and other authorities in connection with the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. The High Court had termed the plea as frivolous and an abuse of the process of law under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
When the matter came up before the Supreme Court, the Bench expressed strong displeasure over the nature of the petition and the conduct of the petitioner, who was appearing in person.
The Chief Justice questioned the petitioner and remarked,
“Didn’t the High Court impose costs on you? You’re not even properly attired—looks like you’ve walked into a wrestling arena.”
Justice Bagchi also observed,
“The High Court has, in fact, imposed costs.”
The Chief Justice further asked,
“How many years have you been practicing?”
Continuing in a stern tone, the Chief Justice said,
“Who made the mistake of granting you a license? Please refrain from filing such petitions. People place trust in you—how will that trust survive if you bring matters like this?”
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi cautioned the petitioner and stated,
“If you continue to press this, we may have to enhance the costs.”
He further clarified the legal position by observing,
“You may disagree with an ideology or political position, but that alone does not constitute an offence or justify seeking an FIR against authorities. Even assuming Parliament passes an unlawful law, would that amount to a crime? Please withdraw—do not put yourself in an embarrassing position.”
After the strong observations from the Bench, the petitioner informed the Court that he did not wish to pursue the matter any further.
In its order, the Supreme Court recorded that the petitioner, who is a practicing advocate appearing in person, stated that he had realized his bona fide mistake and did not wish to continue with the petition filed under the BNSS.
The petitioner also gave an undertaking before the Court that he would not file any similar complaint, application, or petition before any court or authority in the future. This included matters similar to the complaint he had earlier sent in 2020 to the Station House Officer (SHO), Alwar.
He further requested the Court to take a lenient view and to exempt him from paying the ₹50,000 cost imposed by the Rajasthan High Court, and also from any further prosecution.
Taking note of the petitioner’s expression of remorse, his undertaking, and other mitigating factors, the Supreme Court directed that paragraph 16 of the Rajasthan High Court’s impugned judgment shall remain in abeyance indefinitely.
However, the Court made it clear that the said paragraph would automatically revive if the petitioner violates his undertaking in any manner, directly or indirectly.
With these directions, the Supreme Court closed the matter, while cautioning against misuse of criminal law provisions to challenge legislative actions or political decisions.
Case Title:
Puran Chander Sen versus The State of Rajasthan and Others, SLP (Crl) No. 1445/2026,
Read Live Coverage:
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CAA
