Rajasthan HC Slams Advocate's 'Absurd' Plea Against PM, Shah Over CAA, Deprecates Misuse of Legal Process

Jaipur, India – In a stern rebuke against the misuse of judicial machinery for political ends, the Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the registration of an FIR against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah. The plea, which sought to hold them responsible for alleged public disorder following the enactment of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA), was characterized by the Court as "absurd," "frivolous," and a product of the petitioner's "biased and contaminated mind."

The single-judge bench, in a significant order, not only rejected the plea on grounds of jurisdiction and lack of a cognizable offence but also took the opportunity to admonish the petitioner, an advocate, for bringing forth such unsubstantiated and "derogatory" allegations, underscoring the higher ethical standard expected from members of the legal profession.

Background of the Frivolous Plea

The case originated from an application filed by Advocate Abdul Salam Sen on October 12, 2020, before a local court in Govindgarh, Alwar district. The application sought directions to the local police to register a First Information Report (FIR) against the Prime Minister and the Home Minister. The petitioner's central contention was that the passage of the CAA had directly led to widespread law and public disorder across the country, for which the nation's top leadership should be held criminally liable.

After the local court dismissed this application, the petitioner escalated the matter to the Rajasthan High Court, challenging the lower court's decision and reiterating the demand for an FIR.

The High Court's Scathing Judicial Scrutiny

The High Court's examination of the petition was meticulous and unforgiving. The bench began by questioning the very foundation of the plea: the cause of action and territorial jurisdiction. The Court pointedly asked how a cause of action related to a national law and its alleged nationwide consequences could arise specifically within the jurisdiction of the Police Station in Govindgarh, Alwar.

In its detailed order, the Court systematically dismantled the petitioner's arguments, highlighting a complete absence of specific, actionable information. The bench observed that the plea was built on sweeping generalizations and lacked any factual matrix to substantiate its grave claims.

"An arbitrary, concocted and false belief of the petitioner, without any basis, is not suffice to level such a serious allegation," the Court declared. It noted the utter lack of detail in the application, stating, "Any prudent person cannot make such an arbitrary, absurd and bogus allegation and pray for lodging an FIR for its investigation. The application does not contain any details of who got injured, how many people were killed and where all such contingent incidents, if any, took place."

The Court concluded that the petitioner's averments, based on what it termed "his own misconception and the creative thought of his biased and contaminated mind," failed to attract the jurisdiction of the Govindgarh police or prima facie establish the commission of any cognizable offence—the necessary precondition for registering an FIR under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

An Attempt to "Malign" and "Create Hatred"

Moving beyond the technical legal deficiencies, the High Court delved into the apparent motive behind the petition. It opined that the allegations were not a good-faith attempt to seek justice but were made with the ulterior aim of targeting the government.

The judgment took a particularly critical view of the petitioner's status as an advocate, holding him to a higher standard of professional responsibility. "The petitioner, being an advocate, cannot be expected to make such bald, derogatory and serious allegations against the government," the Court remarked.

In a strongly worded condemnation, the bench described the plea's effect and intent: “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 an Advocate cannot be appreciated, rather deserves to be deprecated."

Legal Implications and a Cautionary Message

This judgment from the Rajasthan High Court serves as a potent reminder of the judiciary's role as a gatekeeper against frivolous and vexatious litigation. It reinforces several critical legal principles:

1. Requirement of a Prima Facie Case: The ruling underscores that the machinery of criminal law cannot be set into motion based on vague, unsubstantiated, and generalized accusations. An application seeking an FIR must present a credible, prima facie case disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence.

2. Jurisdictional Nexus: It reaffirms the importance of establishing a clear territorial jurisdiction. A petitioner cannot arbitrarily choose a forum without demonstrating a direct and substantial link between the cause of action and the chosen jurisdiction.

3. Abuse of Judicial Process: The Court's sharp language against the petitioner highlights its intolerance for the abuse of the legal process. By labeling the plea "frivolous" and "absurd," it signals to potential litigants that using the courts as a platform for political grandstanding or to settle political scores will be met with judicial disapproval.

4. Professional Ethics for Advocates: Perhaps the most significant takeaway for the legal community is the Court's explicit commentary on the conduct of the petitioner-advocate. The judgment implicitly invokes the professional duties of an officer of the court, suggesting that lawyers have an ethical obligation to refrain from filing baseless claims and to ensure their petitions are grounded in fact and law. This acts as a stern caution against lawyers becoming instruments in politically motivated or malicious litigation.

By dismissing the petition with such emphatic and critical observations, the Rajasthan High Court has not only disposed of a single case but has also sent a clear, resounding message to the bar and the public: the sanctity of the judicial process must be preserved, and attempts to weaponize the law for extraneous purposes will be firmly resisted.