The Rajasthan High Court recently rejected a plea seeking registration of a murder case against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah and former Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad in connection with the passing of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019 [Puran Chander Sen v. The State of Rajasthan].
Justice Sudesh Bansal imposed costs of ₹50,000 on Advocate Puran Chander Sen, who had made the prayer.
The Court called his allegations of killing or causing injuries as arbitrary and concocted, stating that if at all any incidents happened in any part of the country, there is no basis at all to connect them with the introduction and passing of the CAA.
“The petitioner has not mentioned any source of information or other grounds to have such a belief, hence, 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. There are no particulars at all in the application that who all received injuries, how many were killed and where all such accidental events, if any, happened,” the judge said.
In 2020, 74-year-old Sen had approached Govindgarh police station in Alwar district with an application seeking registration of a first information report (FIR) against Modi, Shah, Prasad, various journalists of channels like Aaj Tak and Republic TV and also certain right wing groups under Sections 302 (murder), 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and other provisions of Indian Penal Code.
He alleged that the CAA was against the spirit of the Constitution of India and brought with an intention to oppress Muslims and people with secular ideology. He submitted that the law led to violence across the country and several people were killed or injured.
However, when the police declined to act on his complaint, he moved a magistrate’s court which rejected his plea. The decision was upheld by a sessions court. Sen then moved the High Court, where his plea was opposed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General RD Rastogi and Rajasthan Advocate General Rajendra Prasad.
The Court at the outset questioned how a cause of action had arisen in Govindarh, Alwar and remarked that Sen’s plea only contained general allegations and no specifics were provided.
“An arbitrary, concocted and false belief of the petitioner, without any basis, is not suffice to level such a serious allegation. Merely on the basis of averments of the petitioner, made in the application dated 12.10.2020, prima facie, it cannot be believed that even if any law and public disorder situation arose in the country, same is outburst of passing of the Amendment Bill – 2019. All such averments, neither attract jurisdiction of Police Station, Govindgarh, nor prima facie give rise to occurrence of any cognizable offences.”
It said that the allegations appear to have been made with the aim to target the government. The petitioner, being an advocate, cannot be expected to make such bald, derogatory and serious allegations against the government, it added.
“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 said.
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.Rajasthan High Court
The Court further said said that an advocate, before initiating any litigation in public spirit, is at least expected to verify the facts of the case and see whether it is supported by any document or evidence. Further, he is expected to act within the parameters of law and not in an arbitrary and whimsical manner just to gain a cheap popularity.
“Minimum expectation from an Advocate is to abide by the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India to maintain the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette and not to fomenting of bogus litigation,” the order stated.
Consequently, the Court rejected the petition with costs. It even gave the respondents - State of Rajasthan, Modi, Shah, Prasad and others liberty to sue Sen in accordance with the law.
“The instant petition is hereby dismissed with costs, which is quantified to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousands Only), payable by the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to deposit the cost before the Litigants Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks, by way of a Demand Draft in the name of Registrar General, LWFA, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur. Respondents are at liberty to prosecute the petitioner by way of availing a civil or criminal remedy, as available under the law, if so desired,” the Court ordered.
Petitioner Puran Chander Sen appeared in person.
Advocates Kapil Vyas, CS Sinha, Kunal Sharma, Rajat Sharma and Chinmay Surolia also represented the Union of India.
Advocate General Rajendra Prasad with Advocates Sheetanshu Sharma, Tanay Goyal, Dhriti Laddha, Harshita Thakral, Rajesh Choudhary, Rishi Raj Singh Rathore and Vivek Choudhary appeared for the State of Rajasthan.
[Read Judgment]