Imran Pratapgadhi v. Union of India (2025) INSC 410 Criminal Appeal No. 1545 of 2025

Author: Princess Chopra, Institute of Legal Studies and Research, GLA University, Mathura

Introduction

This case pertains to the Article 19 (1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which provides the fundamental right of speech and expression. This case arose due to the ignorance of the law enforcement machinery of the state about this fundamental right. The judgement was delivered on March 28, 2025, by the Supreme Court bench including Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. The case examines whether sharing of a poem on social media by a Member of Parliament can be counted under Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). This case revolves around a video clip shared by a Member of Parliament which included the recitation of a poem which was argued to be religiously offensive. The court examined the validity of the complaint filed against the appellant, whether social media could be considered violative of fundamental rights provided by the Constitution. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution does not provide its citizens with absolute rights as it has some reasonable restrictions. But the extent of reasonable restriction has not been clearly specified.

Facts of the Case

The appellant, Imran Pratapgadhi, is an Indian Urdu-language poet and politician from the Indian National Congress, and a member of the Rajya Sabha. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the appellant with the Jamnagar Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 196, 197(1), 302, 299, 57 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Appellant had posted a video with the recitation of the poetry playing in the background on his social media handle ‘X’, namely “ae Khoon Ke pyaason baat suno”. The complainant had filed a complaint claiming that it promoted enmity between communities. The appellant was accused of provoking one community against the other and inciting the communities to fight for their rights. It was further alleged that the poetry of the appellant could prove to be detrimental for the unity of the country. Under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the appellant approached the judiciary for quashing the FIR. Under Article 226, the Appellant first approached the High Court with his petition. The High Court rejected the petition saying that the investigation was at a very nascent stage and the post of the appellant did spread disharmony between the communities. Then the appellant approached the Supreme Court and the case was heard by a Division bench, composed of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. While issuing the notice on the petition, the hon’ble judge asked the appellant to file a petition stating the source of the poetry recited in the video. In the petition, the appellant disclosed that the poem was attributed to either Faiz Ahmed Faiz or Habib Jalil, but it is not possible to ascertain the real ownership of the poem due to lack of historical evidence.

Issues

The petition raised the following critical questions of law-:

Whether the plain recitation of a poem and posting of it on social media attracted liability under Section 196, 197(1), 299, 302, and 57 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Whether the filing of a First Information Report against the appellant violated his right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution?

Appellant’s Arguments

The appellant raised the following arguments in the court to support his plea for the quashing the FIR-:

The appellant argued that the poem was merely recited and not written by him.
He stated that it was a message of love and non-violence, instead of communal disharmony.
It was argued that the posts on social media platforms such as ‘X’, receive multiple both positive and negative responses. Thus, it cannot be proved that it promoted feelings of enmity.
The counsel of the appellant argued that the true meaning of the poem preaches one to bear injustice with love and promotes the sacrifice of oneself for truth, rather than fighting for a religion. The appellant claimed the insensitivity of the police and lack of appreciation for the message conveyed by the poem by the High Court

Respondent’s Argument

The Respondent of the case, the state government of Gujarat, represented by their counsel, the Solicitor General of India:-

The claim made by the appellant regarding the poem being written by Faiz Ahmed Faiz or Habib Jalil is entirely wrong
The appellant criticized the High Court for rejecting his petition instead of appreciating the message conveyed by the poem, while the court was only following the law while giving the decision.

Judgement

The court, after analysing the English translation of the Urdu poetry, concluded that the poetry does not have anything to do with a religion or a community. It does not harm or risk the unity, sovereignty, or integrity of the country. The appellant’s claim of spreading the message of love and non-violence was held correct. It was also said that the poem does not spread non-violence and does not provoke any religion or community against one another. But the court also took into account the responses received by the social media post. The Court accepted that the post did create some sort of communal disharmony amongst the audience of the post. The member of the Parliament is expected to conduct himself/herself in a restrictive manner, so as to not be offensive to any group or community and be aware of the consequences of such posts. The court, after analysing all the sections invoked by the complainant, held that no prima facie case can be established against the appellant. The registration of FIR against the appellant was in itself a violation of the due process of law. The Supreme Court also criticised the decision of the High Court as it held that the message could prove to be disturbing to national harmony. The High Court expressed its inability to quash the FIR as the investigation was at a very early stage, whereas there is no rule that a FIR cannot be quashed at an early stage.

The division bench ruled that the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution is a significant right. As without it, it is impossible to live a life of dignity. Even if a large number of people disapprove the views of the appellant, the person still has the right to express their opinion and be protected. The words of a person may not always be liked but that does not take away their fundamental rights. The courts are under obligation by the Constitution of India to protect the fundamental rights of the people, even if police or government machinery violate it.

Therefore, the order of the High Court was set aside. The FIR against the appellant, Imran Pratapgadhi was quashed and also the further proceedings of the case. The appeal was therefore, allowed.

Analysis

This case revolves around the Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution which provides the people with freedom of speech and expression with some reasonable restrictions . The appellant, a member of parliament, was exercising the above-given right when he posted the poetry on social media. The complainant was one of the audience of the appellant’s verified social media handle on ‘X’. He did not agree with the opinion of the complainant and filed a complaint. The sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) that were invoked by the complainant against the appellant did not attract any liability as alleged offence.

The section 196 invoked refers to the offence of promotion of enmity between different religions, community, regional groups, etc. The poetry of the appellant did not refer to any kind of community or religion. It talked about suffering injustice with a lover, rather than the feelings of retaliation or revenge. The poem might have been disapproved by some section of the online audience of the appellant, but that does not necessarily attract criminal liability. The appellant still possesses the right of freedom of speech and expression. The section 197 invoked also refers to prejudicial imputations, which again brings us to the fact that neither did the poetry contain any reference to a particular religion or community nor did it publish any false or misleading information.

The alleged offence under Article 299 of the BNS contains the deliberate outraging of beliefs of any religion. The poem only dealt with the moral of having the feeling of love even in the times of suffering and injustice. It appealed to people to not have any feeling of retaliation towards the oppressor. The section 302 allegedly also deals with deliberately saying such words which hurt the religious feelings of any person. The same explanation also makes this section inapplicable.

The appellant was also accused of section 57 of the BNS which contains the abetment of commission of offence by public or by more than ten persons. The poetry was recited in a marriage ceremony rather than a religious gathering. It did not incite any community or religion to take a step or do an action. The poem instead talked about giving up the feelings of revenge against the offenders.

The case, overall, was a test of how the fundamental rights were being protected after more than 75 years of implementation of the Constitution. The freedom of speech and expression is not an absolute right under the Constitution of India, but still it cannot be curtailed without any reasonable explanation. The judiciary is the only institution which protects the fundamental rights of the people. It has been shouldered with the responsibility of being a ‘protector’.

The Supreme Court also stated that the republic cannot be so “shaky” or fragile that the mere recital of a poem, stand-up comedy, or an act of entertainment endangers the unity of the country and hurts the feelings of religion or a community. Such acts are fundamental to a free society. It is art like poetry and comedy which makes human life more meaningful.