IMRAN PRATAPGADHI vs STATE OF GUJARAT 2025

IMRAN PRATAPGADHI vs STATE OF GUJARAT, 2025

Case Title and Citation: IMRAN PRATAPGADHI V. STATE OF GUJARAT 2025 INSC 410 (Invalid Date)

Factual Background

The Appellant, Imran Pratapgarhi, a Member of the Rajya Sabha, posted a video clip on his verified ‘X’ (formerly Twitter) account. The video contained a, posted a video clip on his verified ‘X’ (formerly Twitter) account. The video contained a recitation of a poem in Urdu. The poem was recited during a mass marriage ceremony in Jamnagar on December 29, 2024. A complaint was subsequently filed alleging that the poem promoted hatred, incited enmity between communities, and was detrimental to national unity. Based on this complaint, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the Appellant under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), including Sections 196, 197(1), 302, 299, 57, and 3(5). The Appellant filed a petition before the High Court seeking to quash the FIR, arguing that the poem promoted non-violence and love. The High Court dismissed the petition, primarily on the grounds that the investigation was at a nascent stage. The Appellant then challenged the High Court’s judgment before the Supreme Court.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the recitation and posting of the poem constituted offenses under the relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
2. Whether the registration of the FIR was a mechanical exercise and an abuse of the process of law.
3. Whether the police or the courts, particularly in cases involving spoken or written words, failed to respect the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
4. Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to quash the FIR merely because the investigation was at a nascent stage.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR and all further proceedings based on it. The Court held that the registration of the FIR constituted a clear abuse of the process of law, was a mechanical exercise performed without application of mind, and violated the Appellant’s fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Reason for the decision

The Court’s rationale for quashing the FIR included:

1. Interpretation of the Poem and Lack of Offence: The Court analyzed the Urdu poem and its English translation and concluded that the text “has nothing to do with any religion, community, region or race”. The poem primarily promotes non-violence and encourages meeting injustice with love and sacrifice, rather than resorting to violence. The reference to the “throne” was deemed symbolic of resistance against injustice and not an incitement against any community.
2. Absence of Statutory Ingredients and Mens Rea: The Court exhaustively examined the BNS provisions invoked:
   • Section 196 (Promoting Enmity): This section was not attracted because the poem did not promote disharmony, hatred, or ill-will between groups, nor did it disturb or likely disturb public tranquility. The necessary element of mens rea (deliberate intention to promote enmity) was entirely absent, which is required for offences like Section 196 (pari materia to IPC Section 153A).
   • Section 197 (Prejudicial to National Integration): The poem contained no imputation or assertion against any class of persons regarding their allegiance or rights as citizens, nor did it contain false information jeopardizing national unity.
   • Section 299 (Outraging Religious Feelings): The Court found the invocation of this section “ridiculous” as the poem did not insult religious beliefs or outrage religious feelings.
   • Section 302 and 57: These sections were also held inapplicable as there was no deliberate intention to wound religious feelings, and no act of abetment by the public was proved or alleged.
3. Mandate for Preliminary Inquiry under BNSS: The Court noted that under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), Section 173(3) provides an exception to the mandatory registration of FIRs under Section 173(1). Where an offense is punishable for three years or more but less than seven years, the police officer ought to have conducted a preliminary inquiry to ascertain if a prima facie case existed, which was relevant for the alleged offenses in this case. This duty is particularly important when the alleged offense concerns spoken or written words and the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a).
4. Standard of Judgment: The Court stressed that alleged offensive speech must be judged by the standards of “reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds”. Under this standard, the poem did not incite hatred.
5. Duty of Constitutional Courts: The High Court erred by relying on the “nascent stage of investigation” to refuse quashing the FIR when no prima facie case was made out. The Supreme Court emphasized that the judiciary must be “ever vigilant to thwart any attempt to undermine the Constitution and the constitutional values” and zealously protect the freedom of speech and expression.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court established that the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression cannot be stifled by the mechanical registration of FIRs, especially in cases involving artistic expression like poetry, unless the speech clearly and genuinely attracts the reasonable restrictions set out in Article 19(2). Finding no ingredients of the alleged offenses and a complete absence of mens rea, the Court voided the FIR and directed that law enforcement must be sensitized to respect the constitutional ideals of liberty and expression, even when confronting unpopular views.