Supreme Court Reprimands Advocate Over FIR Plea Against PM, HM on CAA; Keeps ₹50,000 Cost Order in Abeyance

Undercover Editor News Channel, February 27, 2026

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday strongly pulled up a practicing advocate for seeking registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Home Minister Amit Shah, and others over the enactment of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA).

While expressing sharp disapproval of the plea, the Court, however, kept on hold a ₹50,000 cost imposed earlier by the Rajasthan High Court after the advocate expressed remorse and gave an undertaking not to pursue such proceedings in the future.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the advocate’s appeal challenging the High Court’s order, which had dismissed his petition as frivolous and an abuse of judicial process.

At the outset, the Chief Justice made pointed remarks questioning the conduct of the petitioner, observing that such petitions undermine public trust in the legal profession. He questioned how a lawyer with decades of experience at the Bar could pursue such legally untenable proceedings.

Justice Bagchi, meanwhile, underlined that ideological or political disagreement with legislation cannot be transformed into criminal allegations against constitutional authorities.

“For argument’s sake, if Parliament passes an illegal law, is it a crime?” the Bench observed, cautioning the petitioner that persisting with such arguments could invite even harsher consequences.

Faced with the Court’s strong observations, the advocate acknowledged his mistake and stated that he did not wish to pursue the matter further. He also assured the Court that he would not file any complaint, petition, or application in relation to the 2020 complaint addressed to the Station House Officer in Alwar.

Recording the undertaking, the Bench ordered that the Rajasthan High Court’s direction imposing ₹50,000 in costs would remain in abeyance indefinitely. However, the Court clarified that the cost order would automatically revive if the advocate breached his undertaking, directly or indirectly, in the future.

The ruling sends a clear message that while dissent and debate are integral to democracy, criminalising legislative actions through unfounded legal proceedings amounts to misuse of the judicial process.