Key Points

The Supreme Court on 27 February 2026 strongly pulled up a practicing advocate, Puran Chander Sen, who had sought registration of an FIR against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Home Minister Amit Shah and others in connection with the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the advocate’s appeal against an order of the Rajasthan High Court. The High Court had dismissed his plea as frivolous and an abuse of process, and imposed costs of ₹50,000.

At the outset, the Chief Justice expressed displeasure over the nature of the petition. When informed that the High Court had imposed costs, the Bench asked the petitioner about his years of practice. The advocate stated that he had been practicing since 1995.

“Who committed the mistake of giving you a license?” CJI Kant commented.

He questioned how such a petition had been filed by an experienced lawyer and remarked that people place trust in members of the Bar. He cautioned the petitioner against filing such pleas and observed that such actions could undermine public confidence.

Justice Bagchi also warned the petitioner that if he continued to press the matter, the Court may have to enhance the costs. The Bench clarified that ideological or political disagreement cannot be converted into a criminal offence.

“For argument’s sake, if Parliament passes an illegal law, is it a crime?” Justice Bagchi asked, questioning the premise of seeking an FIR against constitutional authorities for legislative action. “Please withdraw. Do not embarrass yourself,” he added.

See Also: Here’s How Bollywood Reacts to CAA Protests

The petitioner informed the Court that he did not wish to pursue the matter further. He stated that he had realised his mistake and undertook not to file any similar complaint, application or petition before any court or authority in the future, nor file a complaint like the one he had sent in 2020 to the Station House Officer in Alwar.

He also requested the Court to take a lenient view and exempt him from paying the ₹50,000 costs imposed by the Rajasthan High Court, as well as from any further prosecution.

Recording the statement, the Supreme Court directed that paragraph 16 of the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment, which dealt with the imposition of costs, would remain in abeyance indefinitely. However, the Bench made it clear that the order would automatically revive if the petitioner acted in breach of his undertaking, directly or indirectly.

The Court thus kept the High Court’s direction imposing costs on hold, but linked the relief to strict compliance with the undertaking given before it.

The matter arose in the context of challenges related to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. While broader constitutional challenges to the Act are pending before the Supreme Court, the present case concerned a criminal complaint seeking to prosecute constitutional authorities for their role in enacting the law.

The Bench’s observations underscored the distinction between political or ideological disagreement and criminal liability. The Court indicated that legislative acts, even if contested, cannot automatically be treated as criminal offences warranting registration of an FIR against lawmakers or members of the executive.

[DS]

Suggested Reading: