Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat

The decision in Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat marks an important development in Indian constitutional and criminal law, particularly in relation to freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court addressed the growing concern of criminal proceedings being initiated against individuals for artistic or expressive content without proper scrutiny.

The case primarily dealt with the legality of an FIR registered against a Member of Parliament for sharing a video containing an Urdu poem on social media. The Court examined whether such expression amounted to promoting enmity or disturbing public order and whether the procedural safeguards under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 were followed.

The ruling reinforces constitutional protections under Article 19(1)(a) and clarifies the role of preliminary inquiry in speech-related offences.

Facts of Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat Case

The appellant, Imran Pratapgarhi, is a sitting Member of the Rajya Sabha. He attended a mass wedding ceremony organised by the Sanjari Education and Charitable Trust in Jamnagar, Gujarat on 29 December 2024.

After the event, a video of the ceremony was posted on his verified account on the social media platform ‘X’. The video included a background recitation of an Urdu poem titled “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno”. The poem used metaphorical language to express themes of resistance, sacrifice, and confronting injustice with love.

A private complaint was filed alleging that the content of the poem promoted communal disharmony, hurt religious sentiments, and threatened national unity. Based on this complaint, the Gujarat Police registered an FIR against the appellant.

The FIR invoked several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including:

• Section 196 (promoting enmity between groups)
• Section 197(1) (prejudicial to national integration)
• Section 299 (outraging religious feelings)
• Section 302 (intent to wound religious feelings)
• Section 57 (abetment)

The appellant approached the Gujarat High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. The High Court dismissed the petition, observing that the tenor of the poem and the reactions on social media indicated a potential to disturb social harmony. It also noted that a public figure is expected to exercise greater responsibility.

The High Court relied on the principle laid down in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, stating that courts should avoid interfering at the early stage of investigation.

Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Court

The Supreme Court in Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat considered the following issues:

• Whether the FIR violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)
• Whether the contents of the poem satisfied the ingredients of offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
• Whether the police were required to conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) of the BNSS before registering the FIR
• Whether the Gujarat High Court erred in refusing to quash the FIR

Contentions of the Parties

Contentions of the Appellant

The appellant argued that a plain reading of the poem did not disclose any offence. It was submitted that:

• The poem was a form of artistic expression conveying a message of non-violence and resistance to injustice
• There was no reference to any religion, caste, or community
• The FIR was an abuse of the legal process and violated Article 19(1)(a)
• The police failed to conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) of the BNSS
• Both the police and the High Court failed in their constitutional duty to protect fundamental rights

Contentions of the Respondent

The State maintained that the FIR was registered based on the complaint received. It was submitted that:

• The police were required to act upon the allegations in the complaint
• The matter could be examined during investigation
• The issue may be left to the discretion of the Court

Court’s Analysis and Observations in Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat

Interpretation of the Poem and Absence of Offence

The Supreme Court closely examined the contents of the poem. It observed that the poem did not refer to any religion, caste, or community. The language used was metaphorical and symbolic, addressing themes of injustice and resistance.

The Court noted that the poem conveyed a message of responding to injustice with love and sacrifice. There was no element of incitement to violence or hatred.

It was held that the essential ingredients required to establish offences under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were completely absent. The allegation that the poem promoted enmity or disturbed public harmony was found to be unfounded.

Requirement of Mens Rea in Speech Offences

The Court emphasised that offences such as promoting enmity require the presence of intention (mens rea). Without a deliberate intent to incite hatred or violence, criminal liability cannot be imposed.

Reliance was placed on precedents such as Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya, which recognise that intention is a crucial element in such offences.

In the present case, no material indicated any such intention on the part of the appellant.

Test for Evaluating Speech

The Court applied the standard laid down in Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Government (1946). It held that the effect of speech must be judged from the perspective of reasonable and strong-minded persons, and not from the viewpoint of individuals who are overly sensitive.

Applying this test, the Court rejected the interpretation that the poem could incite communal disharmony. It held that a hypersensitive approach cannot be the basis for criminal prosecution.

Preliminary Inquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS

A significant aspect of the judgment was the interpretation of Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court observed that this provision introduces a safeguard by permitting a preliminary inquiry in cases involving offences punishable between three to seven years of imprisonment. Such inquiry must be conducted with prior approval of a superior officer.

The Court compared this provision with Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the ruling in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh. It noted that the BNSS provides greater flexibility to the police to verify whether a prima facie case exists before registering an FIR.

The Court held that in cases involving freedom of speech and expression, it is always appropriate to conduct such a preliminary inquiry. Failure to do so may result in unnecessary criminal proceedings and may have a chilling effect on free expression.

In the present case, the police failed to conduct any such inquiry, which was considered a serious procedural lapse.

Duty of Police and Courts under the Constitution

The Court emphasised that police officers are part of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution. They have a duty to act in accordance with constitutional principles, including respect for freedom of expression.

Reference was made to Article 51A(a), which requires citizens to uphold the ideals of the Constitution, including liberty of thought and expression.

The Court criticised the police for acting mechanically without examining the content of the poem. It also observed that the High Court failed to act as a protector of fundamental rights.

It was stated that constitutional courts must intervene when fundamental rights are threatened, even at an early stage of investigation.

Freedom of Speech and Artistic Expression

The judgment strongly reaffirmed that artistic expression and dissent are essential components of a democratic society. The Court recognised that expression through poetry, art, or other forms may involve metaphor and symbolism.

It held that mere criticism of authority or expression of dissent does not amount to an offence unless it clearly incites violence or hatred.

The Court warned against the misuse of criminal law to suppress legitimate expression. It noted that such actions can discourage individuals from expressing their views freely.

Characterisation of FIR as Abuse of Process

The Court concluded that the FIR was registered without proper application of mind. It described the action as a mechanical exercise and a clear abuse of the process of law.

It was observed that continuation of such proceedings would unjustifiably infringe upon the appellant’s fundamental rights.

Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Gujarat High Court. It quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the appellant.

Conclusion

The decision in Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat strengthens the protection of freedom of speech and expression in India. It clarifies that criminal law cannot be invoked merely on the basis of allegations without examining the content and context of the expression.

The judgment highlights the importance of procedural safeguards under Section 173(3) of the BNSS. It establishes that preliminary inquiry is an important mechanism to prevent misuse of criminal law in speech-related cases.