Supreme Court Pulls Up Advocate for Frivolous CAA FIR Petition Against PM Modi, HM Shah

The Supreme Court on Thursday strongly reprimanded a practicing advocate who had sought the registration of a first information report (FIR) against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, and others in connection with the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019. The Bench, however, kept in abeyance a ₹50,000 cost imposed by the Rajasthan High Court after the lawyer expressed regret and undertook not to pursue such proceedings in the future.

The matter came up before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, which was hearing the advocate’s appeal against a Rajasthan High Court order dismissing his plea as frivolous and an abuse of process. At the outset, the CJI remarked, “Hasn’t the High Court imposed costs on him? He is not wearing any lawyer’s bands. Looks like he has entered a wrestling arena.” The advocate informed the Bench that the costs had been imposed, and that he had been practicing at the Bar since 1995.

Chief Justice Kant questioned the wisdom of granting him a license to practice and cautioned him against filing petitions that could mislead the public. “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?” he said. Justice Bagchi added that ideological disagreement or political opinion does not constitute a criminal offence.

Also Read: Canada PM Mark Carney Visits India to Reset Ties, Advance Trade Talks with PM Modi

She further warned, “If you press further…we have to increase the costs. You may have a difference of opinion from ideology or politics, but that does not give rise to offence or a basis to ask for 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.”

Following these observations, the advocate acknowledged his mistake and undertook not to file any complaint, application, or petition in any court relating to the 2020 complaint sent to the SHO in Alwar. The Bench recorded his statement and noted his repentance as a mitigating factor.

Taking this into consideration, the Supreme Court directed that the High Court’s order imposing costs would remain in abeyance indefinitely. The Bench clarified, however, that the abeyance would automatically lapse if the advocate acted in breach of the undertaking given before the court, emphasizing accountability alongside leniency.

Also Read: PM Modi Says Budget 2026–27 Charts Tech-Driven Path To Viksit Bharat