The Supreme Court on Thursday strongly reprimanded a practising advocate for seeking registration of an FIR against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Home Minister Amit Shah, and others over the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.
The Court, however, kept in abeyance the Rajasthan High Court’s direction imposing ₹50,000 costs on the advocate, after he expressed remorse and undertook not to pursue similar proceedings in the future.
Background Of The Case
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the advocate’s appeal against a Rajasthan High Court judgment.
The High Court had dismissed the plea as frivolous and an abuse of the judicial process. It had also imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the petitioner.
Court’s Initial Observations
At the outset, the Chief Justice questioned whether the High Court had imposed costs. On confirmation, the Bench asked about the petitioner’s standing at the Bar.
When informed that the advocate had been practising since 1995, the Chief Justice expressed serious concern. He observed that members of the public place trust in advocates, and filing such petitions erodes that confidence.
Ideological Disagreement Not Criminal Liability: Justice Bagchi
Justice Joymalya Bagchi cautioned the petitioner that ideological or political disagreement cannot translate into criminal liability.
The Bench observed that even if Parliament enacts an allegedly illegal law, it does not amount to a criminal offence. Such legislative action cannot justify registration of an FIR against constitutional authorities.
Justice Bagchi warned that persistence with such claims could attract higher costs. He advised the petitioner to withdraw the appeal to avoid further embarrassment.
Undertaking By Advocate
Following the Court’s observations, the advocate stated that he had realised his mistake. He informed the Court that he did not wish to pursue the matter further.
The advocate also undertook not to file or pursue any complaint, application, or petition in any forum concerning the 2020 complaint addressed to the Station House Officer, Alwar.
Supreme Court Keeps Costs In Abeyance
Recording the undertaking, the Bench directed that paragraph 16 of the Rajasthan High Court judgment, which imposed costs, shall remain in abeyance indefinitely.
The Court clarified that the costs would automatically revive if the petitioner breached the undertaking, directly or indirectly.
The appeal was disposed of in these terms.
