Case Title:
Imran Pratapgadhi Vs. State Of Gujarat
Date Of Order :
28 March, 2025
Bench :
Abhay S. Oka
Parties :
Appellant-IMRAN PRATAPGADHI
Respondent- STATE OF GUJARAT
Facts :
The appeal originated from the Gujarat High Court’s decision dated 13th January,2025 where the HC dismissed the petition holding the view that as the investigation is at a very nascent stage, interference cannot be made in view of the decision of this Court.
On December 29, 2024, Imran Pratapgarhi, a Congress Member of Parliament, posted a 46-second video on his social media handle featuring the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” (“O bloodthirsty, listen”) playing in the background. The video was recorded during a mass wedding event in Jamnagar, Gujarat, where Pratapgarhi was showered with flower petals.
A resident of Jamnagar filed a complaint alleging that the video was provocative, detrimental to national integrity, and hurt religious sentiments. Consequently, on January 3, 2025, the Gujarat Police registered an FIR against Pratapgarhi under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 196 (promoting enmity between different groups), 197 (statements prejudicial to national integration), 299 (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), 302 (uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings), and 57 (abetting the commission of an offense by the public or by more than ten persons).
Pratapgarhi approached the Gujarat High Court seeking to quash the FIR filing petition under Section 482 CrPC r/w Article 226, arguing that the poem conveyed a message of love and non-violence. The High Court, however, refused to quash the FIR, noting that the poem’s tenor indicated something about the throne and that the responses to the post suggested it could disturb social harmony. The court also observed that, as a Member of Parliament, Pratapgarhi was expected to behave in a manner that did not disturb communal or social harmony.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Section 482 of CrPC which corresponds to Section 528 of BNSS describes the Inherent Power of High Courts to quash proceedings. This power is inherent and can be used to prevent the abuse of the court process and to ensure justice, to quash proceedings if there is no legal evidence to support the charge, to quash proceedings if the evidence does not prove the charges, to quash proceedings if fundamental rights are violated & to quash proceedings if there are other legal irregularities.
- Article 226 grants High Courts the power to issue writs (commands) for enforcing fundamental rights and for any other legal rights if violated.
- Section 196 of BNS defines and penalizes (with upto 3yrars of Imprisonment with or without fine)actions or speech that promote disharmony, enmity, or hatred between various groups in society based on religion, race, language, or region. It is aimed at maintaining social harmony and preventing acts that can disrupt peace or cause insecurity among communities.
- Section 197 of BNS addresses imputations and assertions that are prejudicial to national integration, punishing actions or statements that undermine the Constitution or deny rights based on identity, with harsher penalties for offenses committed in places of worship. It punishes individuals (upto 3 years of Imprisonment with or without fine)who make statements or take actions that harm national unity by creating divisions based on religious, racial, linguistic, or community identity.
ARGUMENTS RAISED BY APPELLANT
In support of the appeal, the appellant argues that none of the elements of the offenses against the appellant are evident from a plain reading of the complaint and the poem. The appeal also notes that, as is customary, posting the video on the social media platform “X” elicits a range of responses, some positive and some negative, so it cannot be said that the poem caused social discord among the populace. It is argued that the poem does not foster feelings of animosity, hatred, or ill-will between the various castes or communities and religious, racial, linguistic, or regional groups.
It Is submitted that, on its plain reading, it is about sacrificing oneself to fight for rights and truth. The message of the poem is to endure injustice with love and to advocate for nonviolence. Under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the appellant’s learned senior counsel argues that filing a formal complaint based on the poem in question is a violation of the appellant’s fundamental rights. The police, he claimed, had been insensitive. The High Court has not even made an effort to understand the poem’s intended meaning.
ARGUMENTS RAISED BY RESPONDENT
On the other hand , the learned Solicitor General argued that the appellant’s lofty assertion under oath made before honourable High Court that the poem’s creator may be either Habib Jalib or Faiz Ahmed Faiz was completely false. He argued that there was absolutely no foundation for the aforementioned argument made by the appellant under oath. He submitted that it is the obligation of the police to register an FIR. The High Court has followed the law while rejecting the appellant’s petition. Therefore, the criticism made by the learned senior counsel for the appellant about the approach of the High Court is not correct.
JUDGEMENT
- Honourable SC set-aside the impugned order passed by the Gujarat High court & held that there’s no absolute rule that when investigation is at nascent stage , the high court can’t exercise its jurisdiction conferred under Section 482 CrPC & Article 226 of Indian Constitution. If the allegations, taken at face value , don’t disclose any prima facie offence, the high court can intervene to prevent abuse of process of law.
- The judgment clarifies that for speech-related offenses, especially those punishable by imprisonment of less than seven years, law enforcement must conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR as per Section 173(3) BNSS to ensure that the content in question genuinely constitutes a cognizable offense.
- When an offence punishable under Section 196 of BNS is alleged, the effect of the spoken or written words will have to be considered based on standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous individuals and not based on the standards of people with weak and oscillating minds. The effect of the spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of the standards of people who always have a sense of insecurity or of those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position.
- The Court reaffirmed the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, stating that dissenting views should be met with debate rather than suppression. It reaffirmed that creative expressions, such as poetry, should not be hastily construed as threats to social harmony without substantive evidence.
