IMRAN PRATAPGADHI VS STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. 2025 INSC 410

Introduction

It is one of the landmark judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which significantly clarified and constructively elucidated the application and comprehensive meaning of the Fundamental Right under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India. This fundamental right guarantees the right of freedom of speech and expression.

This case was invoked by the background sound of a social media post on X by a Member of Rajya Sabha while attending a wedding in Gujrat. The video post included the recitation of a poem which was alleged to incite people of one community against another and hurts a community’s religious and social sentiments. Furthermore, it was also alleged that it had a detrimental effect on national unity.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while adjudicating this case exonerated some clarifications and directions regarding the procedural law. The Apex Court stated that a police officer under Section 173(3) can conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists to proceed. While highlighting the commission of offences under Section 197, 299 and 302 of BNS, the Court directed that the officer must consider the meaning of the spoken or written words. Also, the Police administration is directed to abide the Constitution and bound to honour and uphold freedom of speech and expression conferred on all citizens. Moreover, the High Courts are also advised to exercise their power to quash FIR in cases where the investigation is at nascent stage, as it all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case as well as the nature of offence.

Factual Background

The Appellant is Imran Pratapgadhi, a Member of Rajya Sabha. He posted a 46 second video of a mass wedding in Jamnagar, Gujarat, on the social media platform ‘X’. The video was reproduced with background recitation of an Urdu Poem.

On the instance of 2nd Respondent, a First Information Report was registered with Jamnagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 196, 197(1), 299, 302, 57 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. The complainant alleged that the spoken word of thee poem incite communal conflicts and hurts religious sentiments. Moreover, it was alleged that it invoked the aggression among two communities at national level and likely to effect detrimentally the national unity.

Thereafter, the appellant approached the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in order to get FIR quashed. He filed a petition under Section 528 of BNSS and upon the direction of the Learned Judge the appellant filed an affidavit disclosing the poem’s source. In affidavit, the appellant stated the sources reviewed by the ChatGPT and public domain opinions, which may be authored either by Faiz Ahmed Faiz or Habib Jalib. Further, he stated that on plain reading of the song poem, it is nothing but a message of love and non-violence. And, he affirmed that the song/poem in question is not produced by him. However, the High Court rejected the petition solely on the basis of investigation at a very nascent stage.

Issues Raised

1. Whether the offences under Section 196, 197(1), 299, 302, 57 and 3(5) of BNS are made out?
2. Whether the police is obliged to register the FIR?
3. Whether the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) violated?

Submissions of Appellant

Primarily, the appellant submitted that none of the offences are invoked due to non-meeting of requisite essential ingredient of the offences. Then he argued that it is usual thing on social media platforms that a post receives both positive and negative reactions which cannot be mischievously meant to be aligned with social disharmony among the people.

Further, he submitted that the poem does not include any ill-will, hatred or promote disharmony or feelings of enmity between the various religious, racial, language or regional groups and castes or communities. The plain reading of poem reduces its meaning to sacrificing oneself to fight for rights and truth. It just promotes non-violence and preaches that one must suffer injustice with love.

Moreover, the Senior Counsel of the appellant submitted that registering FIR on the said poem violate the appellant’s fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. He also highlighted the insensitivity of the police and failure of High Court on the appreciation of message conveyed by the poem.

Submissions of the Respondents

The Learned Solicitor General of India has vehemently opposed the submissions of the appellant. He submitted that the appellant’s claim on oath that the poem’s author can be either Faiz Ahmed Faiz of Habib Jalib is entirely wrong. Moreover, the contentions raised by the appellant are baseless.

Further, he submitted that the police has obligation to register the FIR and the High Court has rightly rejected the petition on the basis of procedure established by the law.

Judgment

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the first issue critically analysed the statutory provisions and figured out that there is no such ingredients present in this present circumstances and facts of the case. Hence, there is no such offence made out, as the plain reading of the poem and its English translation suggests the following things:-

1. Poem has nothing to do with religion, community, region or race.
2. Poem does not affect national integration.
3. It does not jeopardize the sovereignty, unity, integrity or security of India.
4. It simply suggests that while fighting to secure our rights if we are met with injustice, we will face it with love. We will use our tears as flames to light up all paths.
5. It warns the ruler that if the bodies of our loved ones are threat to the rulers, we will bury our loved ones happily.
6. It preaches non-violence and imparts a message that injustice should not be retaliated, but it should be met with love.
7. The poem suggests that one should be willing to sacrifice life in fight against injustice.
8. Therefore, the poem does not promote violence or enmity or hatred, rather it encourage people to desist from resorting to violence and to face injustice with love. It states that our fight with injustice results into death of our near and dear ones, we would be happy to bury their bodies.

The Court while adjudicating the second issue concluded that a police officer must conduct an inquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out. However, under Section 173(1) of BNSS states that police officer is empowered to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case if the information does not discloses a cognizable offence. Whereas, Section 173(3) is an exception to above provision under Section 173(1), in which a police officer is empowered to conduct preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out for proceeding in the matter even if the information received discloses commission of any cognizable offence. Hence, it is not obligation on police to register FIR. Also, the police must abide the Constitution and bound to honour and uphold the freedom of speech and expression conferred on all citizens.

Furthermore, the High Courts are also directed to quash FIR on the basis of circumstances and facts of each case rather than the stage of investigation. Also, free expression of thought and views by individuals is an integral part of a healthy civilized society. In this present case, the Court held that Article 19(1)(a) is violated and the Courts are duty-bound to uphold and enforce fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

Legal Reasoning

The legal reasoning of this judgment centers on the absence of the essential ingredients for the alleged crimes under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the procedural obligations under Section 173 of the BNSS. The Court determined that Sections 196 and 197 were inapplicable because the poem did not target any specific religious or communal group, instead, it used symbolic language, referring to “the throne” and “injustice”, to preach a message of non-violence and sacrifice. Applying the “reasonable man” standard, the Court held that speech must be judged by the perspective of a strong-minded individual rather than a hypersensitive one, concluding that the poem actually discouraged violence by advocating that injustice be met with “love.” Furthermore, the Court read the requirement of mens rea (guilty intent) into these sections, finding no evidence that the appellant intended to promote enmity or disturb public tranquility.

Procedurally, the Court highlighted a significant shift in the law under Section 173(3) of the BNSS, which empowers police to conduct a preliminary inquiry for offences punishable by 3 to 7 years. The Bench reasoned that in cases involving the fundamental right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a), the police have a constitutional duty to exercise this option to prevent the registration of frivolous or “perverse” FIRs that stifle legitimate dissent. The Court criticized the High Court’s refusal to interfere at a “nascent stage,” ruling that when an FIR is a clear abuse of the process of law and fails to disclose any cognizable offence on its face, the judiciary must intervene immediately to protect constitutional values. Ultimately, the judgment reaffirms that the right to criticize the State is an integral part of a dignified life under Article 21, and the law should not be used to regulate or punish artistic expression.

Conclusion

This case prolifically set new standards of interpreting and enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed to all citizens. In this case, the freedom of speech and expression was violated and even though the police and the High Court of Gujarat have failed to utter the reliability of the evidences. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vehemently stated that the roots of democracy lies in the fundamental rights and the Courts are duty-bound to uphold and enforce these fundamental rights. Also, the police and the High Courts should remain intact with the procedure established by the law and exercise their power in consonance with the principles of the Constitution.