Supreme Court Slams Lawyer for Seeking FIR Against PM, HM Over CAA
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday strongly criticized a lawyer for filing a petition seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, and others regarding the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019. The Court described the move as an "abuse of the process of law."
While the Court expressed its severe displeasure, it eventually stayed a ₹50,000 fine previously imposed by the Rajasthan High Court after the lawyer expressed deep regret. The bench made it clear that using the judiciary to settle ideological or political scores under the guise of criminal law is unacceptable and undermines the legal profession.
- Original Complaint: Filed in 2020 with the Station House Officer (SHO) of Alwar, Rajasthan.
- The Demand: Registration of an FIR against top government officials over the implementation of the CAA.
- High Court Ruling: The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the plea as "frivolous" and imposed a ₹50,000 cost on the petitioner-lawyer.
- Supreme Court Hearing: A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the appeal against the High Court's order.
During the hearing, the bench questioned the professional conduct of the petitioner, who has been a member of the Bar since 1995. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) noted that the lawyer appeared in court without proper legal bands, remarking that it looked as if he was entering a "wrestling arena" (dangal) rather than a courtroom.
The Court was particularly irked by the attempt to criminalize the legislative process. It pointed out that the enactment of a law by Parliament, even if contested on constitutional grounds, cannot be treated as a criminal act by the individuals involved in the government.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasized that while individuals are entitled to have ideological or political differences with a law, such differences do not equate to a crime. He warned that if the lawyer continued to press the argument, the Court might be forced to increase the penalty costs.
"Who made the mistake of giving you a license? Please do not file such petitions. People trust you... how will people believe in you if you file all this?" remarked Justice Surya Kant. Justice Bagchi added, "Even if for the sake of argument, Parliament passes an illegal law... is it a crime? Do not embarrass yourself."
The petitioner-lawyer eventually admitted his error and sought the Court's mercy. He provided a solemn undertaking that he would not pursue this complaint—originally sent to the Alwar SHO in 2020—in any court or forum in the future. He also requested the Court to waive the costs imposed by the High Court due to his financial liability.
The Supreme Court bench recorded his undertaking. The judges stated that in light of his apology and the promise not to engage in further such litigation, the directive to pay the ₹50,000 fine would be stayed indefinitely. However, the Court added a strict condition to this relief.
The bench warned that if the lawyer violates the undertaking given to the Supreme Court, either directly or indirectly, the stay on the ₹50,000 fine would be automatically revoked, and the liability to pay would be revived. This served as a final warning to maintain professional decorum.
Under Indian jurisprudence, an FIR can only be registered if a "cognizable offense" is committed. Passing a law in Parliament or implementing government policy does not fall under the definition of a crime under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (formerly IPC). Challenging a law's validity is a civil/constitutional matter, not a criminal one. Experts note that seeking an FIR against authorities for legislative acts is considered a misuse of criminal machinery.
What is officially confirmed vs. What is under verification:
It is officially confirmed that the Supreme Court has stayed the fine and dismissed the plea for an FIR. The lawyer's undertaking not to file such cases again is now a part of the judicial record. There are no ongoing criminal proceedings against the Prime Minister or Home Minister regarding this specific plea, as the courts have consistently found no criminal basis for the petition.
This case highlights the judiciary's stance on "Public Interest Litigation" (PIL) that appears to be politically motivated or legally baseless. For the general public, it clarifies that while laws can be challenged in court for being unconstitutional, the individuals who propose or pass them cannot be prosecuted as criminals for their legislative duties.
The Supreme Court's firm handling of the matter aims to deter the filing of frivolous cases that waste judicial time. By holding a senior lawyer accountable for his choice of litigation, the Court sent a message to the legal fraternity about the responsibility that comes with a law license.
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act remains a subject of multiple constitutional challenges currently pending before the Supreme Court. However, those proceedings are focused on the law's validity, not on criminal prosecution of government leaders.
Expert Legal Clarification
Legal analysts explain that the "abuse of process" mentioned by the Court refers to the use of legal procedures for a purpose other than that for which they were designed. In this case, seeking a criminal FIR for a legislative act is a classic example. According to legal expert Dr. A. Verma, "The immunity provided to legislators for their actions in Parliament ensures that they can function without the constant threat of criminal prosecution by political opponents, provided they act within the bounds of the Constitution."
FAQs
Yes, if the Minister commits a personal criminal act. However, an FIR cannot be filed for official legislative acts like passing or implementing a law passed by Parliament.
The court can dismiss the petition, impose heavy fines (costs), and in extreme cases, refer the matter to the Bar Council for disciplinary action against the lawyer’s license.
The CAA is a law enacted by the Parliament. While its constitutional validity is being challenged in the Supreme Court, it remains an active law as the Court has not stayed its implementation.
.png)
