The Rajasthan High Court on September 23, 2025, dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking directions to register an FIR against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Home Minister Amit Shah, the then Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, and others in connection with the enactment of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019. Justice Sudesh Bansal held the petition to be “absurd, frivolous and vexatious” and a “sheer misuse of process of law,” imposing a cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioner, an advocate named Puran Chander Sen.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a written application filed by Puran Chander Sen on October 12, 2020, before the Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station, Govindgarh, District Alwar. In his application, Sen sought the registration of an FIR against the Prime Minister, Home Minister, Law Minister, and various media channels and social organizations.
The petitioner alleged that the Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2019, was introduced with an “intention to oppress Muslims and People of Secular Ideology.” He claimed that after the bill was passed and became law, protests erupted across the country, leading to deaths, injuries, and arrests, thereby creating an “environment of hatred animosity and public disorder.” He requested that an FIR be registered for offences under Sections 302 (murder), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 153-A (promoting enmity), and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
When the police did not register the FIR, Sen approached the Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh, seeking a direction under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The Magistrate rejected the complaint on October 21, 2020, on grounds of a lack of territorial jurisdiction. A subsequent criminal revision petition was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, on February 20, 2025. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner moved the Rajasthan High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner, appearing in person, primarily relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. & Ors., arguing that his application disclosed cognizable offences, making it mandatory for the police to register an FIR.
The petition was vehemently opposed by the State and Union governments. The Advocate General for Rajasthan argued that the petitioner’s application did not disclose any cognizable offence and, furthermore, the Govindgarh police station had no jurisdiction in the matter.
Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, and Additional Solicitor General R.D. Rastogi, assisting the court, argued that the petition was “prima facie absurd, frivolous and vexatious,” and had been filed “to gain cheap publicity.” They submitted that no part of the cause of action occurred within the territory of Govindgarh, as the legislative process took place in New Delhi. The Additional Solicitor General contended that ministers could not be held personally responsible for a constitutional legislative process and that the allegations were “arbitrary, baseless and malicious.” He further argued that the petitioner, being an advocate, “cannot act like a layman to fomenting of bogus litigation.”
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice Sudesh Bansal, after examining the petitioner’s application and the lower court orders, found the petition entirely devoid of merit.
On Jurisdiction and Cognizable Offence: The court observed that the petitioner’s application contained “no whisper about the occurrence of any act… or any incident of killing or causing hurt to any person within the territorial jurisdiction of Govindgarh.” It held that the allegations were general and lacked specifics, with “no basis at all to connect such incidents with the introduction and passing of Amendment Bill 2019.”
The court stated, “allegations made by the petitioner against the respondents are nothing, but his own misconception and creative thoughts of his biased and adulterated mind. No prudent man can make such an arbitrary, absurd and bogus allegation and then pray to register FIR to investigate thereupon.”
On the Petitioner’s Conduct: The court strongly deprecated the petitioner’s actions, noting that as an advocate, he is expected to act responsibly. The judgment reads, “Such a sweeping allegation made by the petitioner against the respondents is nothing, but an attempt to malign their image and reputation as much as an attempt to create a hatred communal violence and such an action at the behest of Advocate cannot be appreciated, rather deserves to be deprecated.” The court also remarked that “the possibility that such an action of the petitioner is either tutored or politically motivated may not be ruled out.”
Citing the Supreme Court judgment in O.P. Sharma vs. High Court of P&H, the court reiterated the high standards of professional conduct expected from advocates, stating they have an “obligation to uphold the rule of law” and should not be “fomenting of bogus litigation.”
On Frivolous Litigation: The court concluded by observing its duty to curb the misuse of the judicial process. “Easy access to justice cannot be allowed to be used as a license to file misconceived and frivolous petition,” the court noted, emphasizing its responsibility to dismiss such petitions at the threshold with costs “to curb and deter this practice in future.”
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, imposing costs of ₹50,000 payable by the petitioner to the Litigants Welfare Fund within four weeks. The court also granted liberty to the respondents “to prosecute the petitioner by way of availing a civil or criminal remedy, as available under the law, if so desired.”
