The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a petition seeking registration of a murder case against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah and former Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad over the Citizenship Amendment Bill and the protests that followed it which turned violent leading to deaths.

The Court was considering a Petition filed by an Advocate seeking registration of an FIR under Sections 302, 323, 341, 344 read with Sections 120-B, 409, 153-A, 153-B, 218, 109 read with Sections 193 & 195 of the Indian Penal Code.

The bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal observed, "From bare perusal of the averments as well, carefully and meaningfully, without addition and subtraction, same on their face value appears to be vague and non-specific and have 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 Petitioner appeared in-person while the Respondent was represented by Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner, an Advocate wrote an Application to register an FIR against the then Minister of Law & Justice, 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. The Petitioner averred the 2019 Amendment to the Citizenship Act is against the spirit of Constitution of India, which has been 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. It was averred and prayed that in respect of such illegal deeds, FIR be registered against culprits.

Appearing in person, the Petitioner played reliance on Supreme Court's decision in Lalita Kumari Versus Government of U.P. & Ors. and urged that the allegations made in his Application disclose commission of cognizable offences and do not warrant any preliminary enquiry, hence, it was incumbent and mandatory for the police to register the FIR in the present matter.

On the other hand, Solicitor General of India and Additional Solicitor General of India argued that on the face value and from bare perusal of the averments made by the Petitioner in Application so also in the present petition, are prima facie absurd, frivolous and vexatious, which have been made to gain cheap publicity and such a petition deserves to be dismissed at threshold with exemplary costs. It was argued by the Solicitor General of India that taking the averments of Application as it is, no cause of action or part of cause of action, occurred within the territory of Govindgarh, District Alwar and further, Amendment Bill – 2019 was passed in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha at New Delhi for which Respondents may not be held responsible in person.

Additional Solicitor General firmly argued that there is a legislative procedure as envisaged under Article 107 of the Constitution of India, to pass the Bill by the Houses of Parliament and it is not any functionary individual, so neither Minister of Law & Justice nor Hon’ble Prime Minister and Hon’ble Home Minister can be blamed and all allegations are arbitrary, baseless and malicious which have been made with oblique motive.

He also pointed out that Petitioner, being an enrolled Advocate, ought to abide the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette and cannot act like a layman to fomenting of bogus litigation and that the Supreme Court is already ceased with the subject matter of amendment in the Citizenship Act, 1955 and no cause of action arises at all to register any FIR. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court's decision in Vineet Kumar & Ors. Versus State of U.P.: (2017).

Reasoning By Court

The Court concurred with the Solicitor General of India and Additional Solicitor General of India that the Petitioner has only made general allegations, without any specification to impute the Respondents for the alleged acts of killing or causing hurt, if happened, in any part of the country and there is no basis at all to connect such incidents with the introduction and passing of Amendment Bill – 2019 in both the houses of the Parliament.

"The petitioner has not mentioned any source of information or other grounds to have such a belief, hence, allegations made by the petitioner against the respondents are nothing, but his own misconception and creative thoughts of his biased and adulterated mind No prudent man can make such an arbitrary, absurd and bogus allegation and then pray to register FIR to investigate thereupon. There are no particulars at all in the application that who all received injuries, how many were killed and where all such accidental events, if any, happened. Concededly, the act of introducing the Amendment Bill – 2019, to amend the Citizenship Act, commenced and culminated in passing of the Bill by both the houses of Parliament at New Delhi. Assuming for a moment that coincidentally, any situation to maintain the law and order in the society came up before the Government, petitioner miserably failed to show the basis or foundation to connect such sovereign functionary of the Government, to maintain the law and order situation in the society with introduction and passing of the Amendment Bill – 2019", the Court observed.

It noted that an arbitrary, concocted and false belief of the Petitioner, without any basis, is not suffice to level such a serious allegation.

"Merely on the basis of averments of the petitioner, made in the application dated 12.10.2020, prima facie, it cannot be believed that even if any law and public disorder situation arose in the country, same is outburst of passing of the Amendment Bill – 2019. All such averments, neither attract jurisdiction of Police Station, Govindgarh, nor prima facie give rise to occurrence of any cognizable offences", the Court ruled.

It thus concluded that the Petitioner is not able to show a single averment or reason from his application, to invoke the jurisdiction of Police Station, Govindgarh, District Alwar, where none of the incident, as alleged in the Application, happened and no cause of action or part of cause of action arose.

The Petition was accordingly disposed of.

Cause Title: Puran Chander Sen vs. The State Of Rajasthan (2025:RJ-JP:39287)

Appearances:

Petitioner- In-Person

Respondent- Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, Advocate Kapil Vyas, Additional Solicitor General of India R.D. Rastogi, Advocate C.S. Sinha, Advocate Kunal Sharma, Advocate Rajat Sharma, Advocate Chinmay Surolia, Advocate General Rajendra Prasad, Advocate Sheetanshu Sharma, Advocate Tanay Goyal, Advocate Dhriti Laddha, Advocate Harshita Thakral, Government Advocate Rajesh Choudhary, Public Prosecutor Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, Public Prosecutor Vivek Choudhary

Click here to read/ download Order

































Rajasthan High CourtJustice Sudesh Bansal

Sheetal Joon