The Supreme Court on Thursday strongly reprimanded a practicing advocate who had sought registration of a first information report (FIR) against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah and others in relation to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.
However, the Court kept in abeyance a direction passed by the Rajasthan High Court ordering the lawyer to pay ₹50,000 costs after he expressed regret and undertook not to pursue such proceedings again.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the advocate’s appeal against a Rajasthan High Court order which had dismissed his plea as frivolous and an abuse of process.
At the outset, the CJI remarked,
“Inko cost nahi lagaya High Court ne? Band vand pehene nahi hai...laga koi dangal me utarne aaye hai." [Hasn't the High Court imposed costs on him? He his not wearing any lawyer's bands. Looks like he has entered a wrestling arena.]
When told that the costs had in fact been imposed, the Bench asked the petitioner about his years at the Bar.
“From 1995,” the advocate replied.
The CJI responded,
“Who committed the mistake of giving you a license? Please don't file such petitions. People believe you...how will people trust you if you file all this?"
When the petitioner referred to ideological objections, Justice Bagchi cautioned him that disagreement with politics or ideology cannot be converted into a criminal offence.
“If you press further...we have to increase the costs. You may have a difference of opinion from ideology or politics etc, but that does not give rise to offence or you ask FIR against an authority. For argument's sake, if parliament passes an illegal law...is it a crime?? Please withdraw. Do not embarrass yourself,” Justice Bagchi said.
Following the court’s remarks, the petitioner stated that having realised his mistake, he did not wish to pursue the petition. He further undertook not to file any such complaint, application or petition in any court or in any other form in relation to the 2020 complaint sent to the SHO, Alwar.
Recording this statement, the Bench ordered,
“The petitioner further prays that this Court may take a lenient view and exempt him from paying costs as imposed by the High Court and to further prosecute the petitioner. Taking into consideration the repentance shown by the petitioner, and his undertaking, and also keeping in view other mitigating factors, we direct that para 16 of the impugned judgment of High Court shall remain in abeyance indefinitely save and except that it will automatically stand revived if the petitioner does act in any manner directly or indirectly in breach of undertaking given before us.”
[Read Live Thread]