This article was written by Gauri Jaiswal during her Internship at LeDroit India.
Case Title & Citation
Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Criminal Appeal No. 1545 of 2025
Supreme Court of India – Judgment dated 28 March 2025
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka
Factual Background
On 26 January 2025, India celebrated the 75th anniversary of its Constitution. The case brought before the Supreme Court raised important questions about free speech protections under Article 19(1)(a) amid criminal charges related to alleged “offensive” speech.
The appellant, Imran Pratapgarhi, is a Member of the Rajya Sabha. On 29 December 2024, he attended a mass wedding in Jamnagar, Gujarat, organized by a local municipal councillor. During this event, a video captured him while an Urdu poem played in the background.
Later, this video was shared on the social media platform “X” from his verified account. The poem featured symbolic language that addressed themes of injustice, sacrifice, and love in the face of oppression, including the lines:
“Ae khoon ke pyaso, baat suno…
Gar haq ki ladai zulm se mili, hum zulm se ishq nibha denge…”
The complainant claimed that the poem incited discord among communities, hurt religious feelings, and threatened national unity. An FIR was filed at Jamnagar Police Station under Sections 196, 197(1), 299, 302, 57, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
Proceedings Before the High Court
The appellant submitted a petition under Section 528 BNSS (similar to Section 482 CrPC) along with Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to dismiss the FIR.
He provided an affidavit stating that he did not write the poem, which may have been created by Faiz Ahmed Faiz or Habib Jalib, and expressed a message of love and non-violence.
The Gujarat High Court refused to dismiss the FIR, arguing that the investigation was in its early stages and that the poem could disrupt social harmony.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
1. Does the poem and its posting count as any of the alleged crimes under Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, 57 BNS?
2. Was the FIR filed in violation of the appellant’s fundamental right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a)?
3. Was the High Court right to refuse to dismiss the FIR simply because the investigation had just started?
4. What is the role of preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS in speech-related offences?
Relevant Provisions
Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of speech and expression.
Article 19(2) – Reasonable restrictions.
Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, 57 BNS – Related to inciting enmity, making prejudicial assertions, offending religious feelings, and abetting.
Section 173(3) BNSS – Allows for a preliminary inquiry in certain cognizable offences with a punishment of 3–7 years.
Section 528 BNSS – Gives the High Court the authority to prevent misuse of the law.
Court’s Analysis
1. Plain Reading of the Poem
The Court translated and looked at the poem’s content.
It found no mention of any specific religion, caste, community, or language group.
The poem symbolically referred to “the throne” (rulers) and called for responding to injustice with love, even at the cost of personal sacrifice.
The Court concluded it promotes non-violence and self-sacrifice without spreading hatred or division.
2. Applicability of Sections Alleged
Section 196 BNS – Requires evidence of promoting discord or enmity on specific grounds. Not applicable since no such element was found.
Section 197 BNS – Involves accusations against a group based on their identity. Not applicable.
Sections 299 & 302 BNS – Demand a deliberate intention to offend or hurt religious sentiments. No such intention or content was found.
Section 57 BNS – Relates to abetting an offence publicly. There was no evidence of such abetting.
3. Requirement of Mens Rea
The Court reaffirmed from Manzar Sayeed Khan and Patricia Mukhim that intent (mens rea) is crucial in speech-related offences similar to Section 153A IPC (comparable to Section 196 BNS).
Here, there was no intention to incite violence or hatred.
4. Role of Police & Preliminary Inquiry
Section 173(3) BNSS allows police to perform a preliminary inquiry before filing an FIR in cases punishable with up to seven years.
In cases related to speech, police should usually use this option to prevent abuse against free speech.
They failed to do so in this instance.
5. Duty of High Courts
High Courts can dismiss FIRs even at an early stage if no offence is established.
The Gujarat High Court made a mistake by automatically refusing relief.
Courts must protect fundamental rights, rather than just deferring to ongoing investigations.
Ratio Decidendi
Offences related to speech must be interpreted from the perspective of a reasonable, open-minded person instead of a sensitive audience.
Intent is essential — simply expressing dissent or offering symbolic criticism does not equate to promoting enmity or hatred.
Courts and police must balance Article 19(1)(a) rights with Article 19(2) restrictions in a careful, rights-conscious manner.
Preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS serves as an important safeguard in speech cases.
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the FIR.
It strongly criticized both the police and the High Court for not upholding constitutional freedoms.
The Court directed that police should receive training to ensure they fulfill their constitutional responsibilities under Article 51A(a) to respect the Constitution and its principles.
Significance
1. Free Speech Protection – The ruling reinforces that unpopular or dissenting views, including artistic expressions, are constitutionally protected unless they clearly incite violence or hatred.
2. Judicial Duty – It stresses that courts must step in to prevent misuse of the law in free speech matters.
3. Police Responsibility – The decision stresses the need for preliminary inquiry before FIRs in speech-related offences to prevent a chilling effect on free expression.
4. Mens Rea Doctrine – It strengthens the necessity of intent in cases involving accusations of promoting enmity.
5. Democratic Values – The ruling cautions against allowing public anger or political sensitivity to undermine constitutional rights.
