Court Rejects Allegations as Baseless
Justice Sudesh Bansal, delivering the order, noted that the allegations of killings and injuries linked to the CAA were made without any credible source, evidence, or specifics. The Court said the claims reflected the petitioner’s “biased and adulterated mind” and lacked particulars on who was harmed, where incidents occurred, or how they were connected to the CAA.
“No prudent man can make such arbitrary, absurd, and bogus allegations and then pray to register an FIR,” Justice Bansal observed. The judge also stressed that the petitioner, being an advocate, was expected to verify facts before filing such serious charges.
Background of the Case
In 2020, Sen had approached Govindgarh police station in Rajasthan’s Alwar district seeking an FIR under Sections 302 (murder), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), and other IPC provisions against top political leaders, television journalists, and certain right-wing groups. He alleged that the CAA violated the Constitution and had been introduced to oppress Muslims and secular voices, claiming it triggered violence across the country.
When the police did not act, Sen moved a magistrate’s court, followed by a sessions court, both of which rejected his plea. The matter eventually reached the High Court, where Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General RD Rastogi, and Rajasthan Advocate General Rajendra Prasad opposed the petition.
High Court’s Observations
The Court questioned why the cause of action was filed in Alwar when no incident was cited there. It concluded that Sen’s allegations were an attempt to malign the image of government leaders and create communal disharmony. Justice Bansal said such “sweeping allegations” were unacceptable from an advocate, who must maintain professional standards.
“Minimum expectation from an advocate is to abide by the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India to maintain professional conduct and not foment bogus litigation,” the Court remarked.
Costs and Liberty to Sue
The Court directed Sen to deposit ₹50,000 with the Rajasthan High Court Litigants Welfare Fund within four weeks. It also granted liberty to the State of Rajasthan and the respondents, including Modi, Shah, and Prasad, to pursue civil or criminal action against Sen if they wished.
Significance of the Order
The judgment underscores the judiciary’s firm stance against misuse of public interest litigation for political or personal motives. It reinforces the responsibility of legal practitioners to act with diligence and not pursue baseless charges for publicity.
The CAA, enacted in December 2019, amended the Citizenship Act, 1955, to fast-track citizenship for non-Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. The law sparked nationwide protests, with critics alleging discrimination, while the government has consistently maintained that it upholds India’s humanitarian obligations.
