The Supreme Court strongly reprimanded a practising lawyer who sought to register a first information report (FIR) against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, and others regarding the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. The Bench found the petition frivolous and an abuse of judicial procedure but decided to keep the ₹50,000 costs imposed by the Rajasthan High Court in abeyance after the advocate expressed regret and undertook not to repeat such actions.
Lawyer’s Conduct Under Scrutiny
The Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, immediately questioned the advocate’s professional judgment. “Hasn’t the High Court imposed costs on him? He is not even wearing lawyer’s bands. Looks like he has entered a wrestling arena,” The Chief Justice remarked, highlighting the inappropriateness of the petition. When asked about his experience at the Bar, the lawyer stated he had practised since 1995. CJI Surya Kant responded sharply, “Who committed the mistake of giving you a licence? Please do not file such petitions. People believe you… How will people trust you if you file all this?”
Ideology Cannot Justify Legal Abuse
The lawyer explained that his petition stemmed from ideological objections. Justice Bagchi cautioned that disagreements over politics or ideology cannot be treated as criminal offences. “If you press further, we may have to increase the costs. A difference of opinion from ideology or politics does not give rise to an offence or the right to seek an FIR against an authority. For argument’s sake, if Parliament passes an illegal law, is it a crime? Please withdraw. Do not embarrass yourself,” she said.
Acknowledging his error, the advocate withdrew his petition and promised not to file any complaint, application, or petition related to the 2020 complaint sent to the SHO, Alwar. He requested leniency regarding the costs imposed by the High Court.
Costs Held in Abeyance With Strict Warning
Recording his statement, the Bench directed that the High Court’s order on costs remain in abeyance indefinitely. The provision would revive automatically if the advocate breached his undertaking. The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasised that judicial processes cannot be misused to advance personal or ideological agendas and reinforced the responsibility of legal practitioners to uphold public trust and the credibility of the courts.
This ruling sends a clear message that frivolous petitions waste judicial resources, undermine the integrity of the legal profession, and cannot be used to settle political or ideological scores.
