Poetic Dissent is Not a Crime: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Imran Pratapgarhi, Upholds Freedom of Expression

"Even 75 Years After the Constitution, The State Must Be Reminded To Respect Free Speech" — In a landmark judgment Supreme Court of India quashed the FIR registered against poet and Member of Parliament, Imran Pratapgarhi, for reciting a poem during a mass marriage event. The Court held that “mere recital of a poem, however strong its message, does not amount to promoting enmity or disturbing public harmony unless it squarely falls within Article 19(2) restrictions.”
The bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, while allowing the appeal, ruled that the FIR was a clear abuse of process and emphasized that freedom of expression cannot be curtailed under the garb of imagined offences.
The controversy stemmed from a poem recited by Imran Pratapgarhi during a public event at Jamnagar, Gujarat, on 29th December 2024. A video of the recital, posted on his verified social media handle, was alleged to have incited communal disharmony. The FIR accused him under multiple provisions of the newly enforced Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), including Sections 196 (promoting enmity), 197(1) (imputation against national integration), 299 (outraging religious feelings), 302 (wounding religious feelings), and 57 (abetting offences by public).

The High Court of Gujarat, while refusing to quash the FIR, reasoned that as the investigation was at a nascent stage, interference would not be appropriate. Imran Pratapgarhi challenged this order before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court's Observation on the Poem: “It Preaches Non-Violence, Not Enmity”
The Court carefully examined both the Urdu and English versions of the poem and held: “The poem has nothing to do with any religion, community, region or race. It only suggests that while fighting for rights, if injustice is met, it must be met with love.”
Further, the Bench noted: “It does not jeopardize the sovereignty, unity, integrity or security of India. It does not encourage violence. On the contrary, it encourages people to desist from resorting to violence and to face injustice with love.”
Applicability of Criminal Offences — Court’s Detailed Finding
On Section 196 BNS (promoting enmity), the Court categorically found: “Neither clause (a) nor clause (b) of Section 196(1) is attracted. There is no allegation that the poem creates disharmony or promotes hatred between groups.”
On Section 197 BNS (imputation against national integration), the Court observed: “It does not make or publish any imputation about any class of persons, nor does it assert or counsel deprivation of rights.”
On Section 299 BNS (outraging religious feelings), the Court called the allegation “ridiculous,” stating: “The poem only tells the rulers what the reaction will be if the fight for rights is met with injustice.”
On Section 302 BNS (wounding religious feelings), the Court said: “Even this section is not applicable on its face.”
On Section 57 BNS (abetting commission of offence by public), the Court remarked: “We fail to understand how, even if it is assumed that the appellant has committed some offence, he has abetted the commission of an offence by the public.”

Mandatory Preliminary Inquiry Under BNSS Ignored by Police
The Court highlighted the significance of Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: “When the offence alleged is punishable by imprisonment for up to 7 years and involves speech, a preliminary inquiry to ascertain the existence of a prima facie case is appropriate, if not mandatory.”
The Court strongly criticized the police for failing to exercise this discretion: “If an option under sub-section (3) is not exercised, it will defeat the very object of incorporating sub-section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS and will also defeat the obligation of the police under Article 51A(a).”
"Freedom of Expression is Not for the Timid": Standard of Strong-Minded Reader Reaffirmed
Quoting from historic judgments, including Bhagwati Charan Shukla, Manzar Sayeed Khan, and Javed Ahmad Hajam, the Court reiterated: “The effect of the words must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds.”
The Court cautioned against courts or police perceiving dissent, poetry, satire, or criticism as threats merely because they are “uncomfortable” or “critical.”
Mens Rea Essential — Cannot Be Imputed from Mere Dissent
The Court reaffirmed that mens rea (intention) is essential under Section 196 BNS and similar provisions: “In this case, looking to the text of the words spoken and the context in which those were spoken, it is impossible to attribute any mens rea to the appellant.”
High Court Erred by Mechanically Refusing to Quash FIR
The Court noted with disapproval: “The High Court ought to have nipped the mischief at the threshold itself. We fail to understand how it concluded that the message was posted in a manner that would disturb social harmony.”

The Supreme Court clarified: “There is no absolute rule that FIRs cannot be quashed at the nascent stage if prima facie no offence is made out. Such a blanket embargo would substantially curtail the High Court's powers.”
The Supreme Court’s Powerful Reminder on Judicial Duty
Justice Oka, speaking for the Bench, observed: “Courts, particularly constitutional courts, must be at the forefront to zealously protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. Freedom of speech and expression is one of the most cherished rights a citizen can have in a liberal constitutional democracy.”
Referring to Anand Dighe and Shreya Singhal, the Court stressed: “The right of the playwright, artist, writer, and poet will be reduced to a husk if the freedom to portray a message depends upon the popular perception of its acceptability.”
The Court concluded: “Seventy-five years into our republic, we cannot be seen to be so shaky on our fundamentals that mere recital of a poem or any form of art or entertainment can be alleged to lead to animosity or hatred amongst different communities.”
The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and all related proceedings, holding the action of registering the FIR as: “Mechanical, insensitive, and contrary to the constitutional mandate.”
The Court directed that police authorities across the country must be sensitized to constitutional freedoms and the proper application of BNSS provisions, especially in free speech cases.
 

Date of Decision: 28th March 2025