IMRAN PRATAPGADHI V. STATE OF GUJARAT (2025 )

CITATION: AIR 2025 INSC 410 

BENCH: IMRAN PRATAPGADHI v STATE OF GUJARAT 

JUDGEMENT: 28 MARCH, 2025

INTRODUCTION 

The landmark case of Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025 INSC 410), passed by the Supreme Court of India on March 28, 2025, illustrates how freedom of speech and expression often sit at the heart of constitutional debates, with courts balancing individual rights and public interests. The case began when a Member of Parliament used a poem as the background of a social media post, which was said to incite hostility and disturb communal peace. The police filed an FIR without conducting the necessary prior inquiry under the BNSS rules. The court’s decision to drop the FIR demonstrates its commitment to protecting constitutional freedoms, particularly the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a), from being wrongly curtailed by criminal law. This judgment is highly significant because it helps establish a balance regarding the extent of government and police authority over speech and expression. As public sensitivity over expression increases, this verdict serves as an important example. It ensures that democratic discussion and disagreement are not unfairly suppressed through the broad application of new criminal codes, affirming that constitutional freedoms remain fundamental to India’s democracy.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE 

In 2025, Gujarat Police filed an FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgadhi for an Instagram post featuring the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno.” Police said the poem broke the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) by inciting hostility. A core legal question is whether the police wrongly filed the FIR without the inquiry that Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 requires for offences that have a three-to-seven-year sentence. The petitioner told the Supreme Court that this violated his free speech right. The petitioner argued the poem didn’t incite violence and accused police of not following procedure, going against free speech rights and protections against police reports that have no merit. On March 28, 2025, the Supreme Court reversed the FIR, citing the lack of a preliminary inquiry as a violation of procedural rules and constitutional rights. The court confirmed the need to protect free speech, mostly when politics are involved, under the new justice system.

ISSUES 

1. Did reciting and posting the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” lead to criminal charges under sections 196, 197(1), 299, 302, 57, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023?
2. 
   Did the FIR and investigation infringe on the appellant’s right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution?

Rules laid down in the case: 

The case Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat laid on the following rules:

• The Supreme Court clarified Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, stipulating that a preliminary inquiry is mandatory before registering an FIR for cognizable offences punishable with three to seven years. This procedural safeguard aims to prevent arbitrary or frivolous FIRs, especially in speech-related offences.
• The Court gave importance to protecting freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, saying that just claiming speech is offensive isn’t enough to immediately file a First Information Report (FIR) without checking the details.
• The Court restated that steps like filing an FIR must follow constitutional rules of fairness and protecting rights. This makes sure police don’t abuse their power to stop people from expressing themselves in a democracy.
• The ruling also explained the limits of government and police power. It said that any limits on speech must be specific, balancing concerns about public order with personal freedoms. This stops criminal laws from being wrongly used to restrict free expression.

JUDGEMENT 

In Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025 INSC 410), the Supreme Court of India quashed an FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgadhi on March 28, 2025. The court held that Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 mandates an initial enquiry before filing an FIR in cases where speech and expression might warrant a prison sentence of three to seven years. 

KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM THE JUDGMENT:

• The FIR against Pratapgadhi, filed under Sections 196, 197(1), 299, 302, and 57 of BNS 2023 for sharing a poem, was voided because the poem itself did not constitute a crime. The court noted the poem advocated sacrifice and non-violence and was not seditious or divisive.
• The Supreme Court underscored the importance of protecting free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and stated that a preliminary enquiry is needed to decide whether to file an FIR for speech-related offenses. This aims to avoid unnecessary prosecutions and legal misuse.
• The court found that the High Court erred in upholding the FIR without the required enquiry and in failing to adequately protect constitutional rights.
• This ruling aligns with previous cases like Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014), D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), and Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994), which safeguard liberty and free expression.
• The decision clarifies police procedure and safeguards freedom of expression in the context of FIRs registered under the BNS 2023 for speech-related matters and will be important in future cases.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT 

I would like to quote down the poem here, as it says:
“Those who are blood thirsty, listen to us If the fight for our rights is met with injustice We will meet that injustice with love If the drops flowing from a candle are like a flame (Analogy: if the tears from our face are like a flame) We will use it to light up all paths If the bodies of our loved ones are a threat to your throne We swear by God that we will bury our loved ones happily  Those who are blood thirsty, listen to us.”

The poem quoted above is the one around which the whole case revolves. The allegation is that the poem herein mentioned contains provocative language about religion, caste and language of Hindus, Muslims and other living castes in india. These actions also cover promotiong enemity between different religions , making statements against the national unity and overall this poem is encouraging people to commit crimes against each other. 

Now the offences are alleged under  Section 196, 197(1), 302, 299, 57, 3(5) of the BNS,2023. Let’s break down the material of the offences. 

Section 196 prohibits actions that promote hostility between groups based on religion, race, or place of birth. This includes using words or signs to incite hatred or disrupt public order and training people to commit violence. The penalty is up to three years in prison, or five years if the crime occurs in a place of worship.Section 197 punishes accusations or claims threatening national unity, such as publishing content denying a group’s loyalty to the Constitution. Spreading false information that threatens sovereignty is also illegal, with penalties up to three years in prison, or five years during a religious gathering.

Section 299 addresses actions meant to offend religious sentiments by insulting a religion or religious beliefs, with a punishment of up to three years imprisonment.Section 302 concerns using words to hurt someone’s religious feelings, carrying a penalty of up to one year in prison.Now, let’s compare the intensity of the allegation to the simplicity of the poem :

The charges brought under these laws are serious, covering actions that cause communal division, threaten national unity, insult religious views, and could cause violence. The poem, though, is simple. 

• Doesn’t mention or criticise any religion, caste, community, or group. 
• Doesn’t encourage hate or hostility between groups.
• Just questions injustice by those in power, but does not cause violence or communal division. 
• Doesn’t contain anything against national integrity or citizenship. 
• Doesn’t insult religious feelings or try to hurt anyone’s religious feelings.
• Doesn’t support or encourage any crime by the public.

So, the severity of the criminal charges is very different from the poem’s simple and harmless nature. The poem doesn’t have the harmful things these statutes want to stop. This difference supports the decision that no real crime was committed, and the FIR was rightly cancelled.

AFTERNMATH OF THE JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court’s decision in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025) is an important moment for free speech protection and proper procedure under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023.

The ruling made clear that a formal preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) is required before filing a First Information Report (FIR) for serious crimes that carry a sentence between three and seven years. This is especially true in cases related to speech. The court’s decision means police must be careful and avoid pressure to file baseless FIRs that could discourage free expression.

This has wide-ranging effects on police responsibility and awareness. Law enforcement needs to understand constitutional rights and the limits of their power better. The legal system requires training and changes to ensure basic rights, like free speech, are not harmed by thoughtless or random actions.

In legal terms, the ruling creates a precedent to ensure judicial watchfulness and proper procedure before speech can be considered a crime. It supports constitutional protections under Article 19(1)(a) and agrees with earlier cases like Lalita Kumari v. U.P. It also adds defenses against the misuse of the legal system for political or social disagreement.

From a social viewpoint, supporters of free speech have praised the judgment as a defense against the mistreatment of those who disagree with the government. The decision reinforces democratic principles and promotes a more thoughtful way to manage speech. This approach respects freedom while still considering public order.

In short, the result is a judicial reaffirmation of the need to balance government power and individual freedom. This has real-world consequences for policing, criminal cases, and the right to free expression in India.

CONCLUSION 

In Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court defended free speech by clarifying procedures under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023. For speech-related cases with prison terms of three to seven years, police must conduct a preliminary inquiry before filing an FIR to establish a basic case. Failure to do so is a misuse of legal power. The Court found Imran Pratapgadhi’s poem a peaceful expression that did not incite hatred or threaten national unity. The FIR was a thoughtless act violating constitutional rights. This ruling requires police to be cautious and respect constitutional rights in speech cases. This judgment balances law enforcement with basic rights, encouraging responsibility and protecting critical voices. It guards against wrongly treating speech as a crime and reinforces the rule of law and free expression in India.