'No FIR over difference of opinion': Supreme Court pulls up lawyer who sought FIR against PM Modi, Amit Shah

The Supreme Court today came down heavily on a lawyer who sought registration of an FIR against Home Minister Amit Shah and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

"Inko cost nahi lagaya high court ne? Band pehna nahi hai.. lag rha koi dangal me utarne aaye hai...", a miffed Chief Justice of India asked today. The CJI went on to ask the Advocate before him, "Kitne saal hogaye wakalat karte aapko? Who committed the mistake of giving you a license. Please don't file such petitions..".

The petitioner, one Puran Chander Sen had sought to register an FIR against the then Minister of Law & Justice RS Prasad, Home Minister and Prime Minister as also against the Programmers and Journalists having nexus with TV Channels like Aaj Tak, Republic India and the members connected with Hindu Mahasabha, Vishva Hindu Parishad, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Bajrang Dal etc. 

Sen had further averred that the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, was against the spirit of Constitution of India, which was brought with an intention to oppress Muslims and People of Secular Ideology and after promulgation of such amended Legislation, protests were made by the affected people and secular institutions across the country, wherein several persons were killed and injured; protestors were locked up in Jail, hence, thereby throughout the country an environment of hatred animosity and public disorder was created. He accordingly sought FIR be registered 'against culprits for offences under Sections 302, 323, 341, 344 read with Sections 120-B, 409, 153-A, 153-B, 218, 109 read with Sections 193 & 195 of IPC and investigation be initiated against the culprits'.

Justice Bagchi today called upon the lawyer to see reason and withdraw his plea. "If you press further.. we will increase the costs. You may have a difference of opinion from ideology or politics but that does not give rise to an offence or for you to ask FIR against an authority. If parliament passes an illegal law is it a crime? Please withdraw do not embarrass yourself," Justice Bagchi told him.

As the petitioner agreed to not press his plea further, CJI Kant recorded in his order, "The petitioner who is a practicing advocate and is present in person states that having realised his bona fide mistake, he does not want to pursue the petition which was filed under BNSS. He also undertakes not to file any such complaint, application or petition in any court or any other format. 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 HC 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."

The Supreme Court has set aside the cost imposed on Sen of Rs. 50,000/- by the Rajasthan High Court in September last year. High court had noted that on face value, the petition appeared to be vague and non-specific and had been made to target the Government, for one or the other reasons, best known to the petitioner. 

"Petitioner, being an advocate, cannot be expected to make such bald, derogatory and serious allegations against the Government and its Ministry of Council. 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 averments made in the application do not warrant any preliminary enquiry at all and the act of the State Government as also the orders passed by the Judicial Courts, declining to register FIR on the basis of such absurd averments, cannot be held faulted in any manner", the high court had noted in its judgment.

"An Advocate, being attached with a noble profession and society, owes certain additional responsibilities towards society than an ordinary person. 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 high court had said further pulling up the petitioner.

Case Title: PURAN CHANDER SEN Vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Bench: CJI Kant and Justice Bagchi

Hearing Date: February 27, 2026