Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Imran Pratapgadhi – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1545 of 2025
Decided On : 28-03-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 196, 197(1), 302, 299, 57 and 3(5) – Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528 read with Article 226 of Constitution of India – Hurting religious and social sentiments of one community – Poem refers to throne in context of fight against injustice – Reference to throne is symbolic – Poem does not encourage violence – On the contrary, it encourages people to desist from resorting to violence and to face injustice with love – Poem does not refer to any religion, caste or language – It does not refer to persons belonging to any religion – It does not promote enmity between different groups – Neither clause (a) nor clause (b) of Section 196(1) are attracted – Poem does not publish or make any false or misleading information – Acceptance of freedom to express a view which may not accord with mainstream are cardinal values – A society wedded to rule of law cannot trample upon rights of those who assert views which may be regarded as unpopular or contrary to views shared by majority – Right of playwright, of artist, writer and of poet will be reduced to husk if freedom to portray a message - whether it be in canvas, prose or verse – is to depend upon popular perception of acceptability of that message – Popular perceptions cannot override constitutional values such as guarantee of freedom – FIR quashed. (Paras 10, 12, 14, 16, 40, 42 and 43)
(B) Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 173 – Information relating to commission of a cognizable offence – Preliminary inquiry can be made under Cr.P.C. only if information does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence but indicates necessity for an inquiry – Under Sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of BNSS, after holding a preliminary inquiry, if officer comes to a conclusion that a prima facie case exists to proceed, he should immediately register FIR and proceed to investigate – But, if he is of the view that a prima facie case is not made out to proceed, he should immediately inform first informant/complainant so that he can avail a remedy under Sub-Section (4) of Section 173 – To ascertain whether information received by an officer-in-charge of police station makes out a cognizable offence, officer must consider meaning of spoken or written words – This act on part of police officer will not amount to making a preliminary inquiry which is not permissible under Sub-Section (1) of Section 173. (Para 42)
(C) Constitution of India – Articles 19 (1)(a) and 21 – Freedom of expression – Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed by Article 21 of Constitution – In a healthy democracy, views, opinions or thoughts expressed by an individual or group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of view – Even if a large number of persons dislike views expressed by another, right of person to express views must be respected and protected – If police or executive fail to honour and protect fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a) of Constitution, it is duty of Courts to step in and protect fundamental rights – There is no other institution which can uphold fundamental rights of citizens. (Para 42)
Facts of the case:
Appellant is a Member of Rajya Sabha. The 2nd respondent is first informant at whose instance a First Information Report was registered with Jamnagar Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 196, 197(1), 302, 299, 57 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Appellant posted video on the social media platform ‘X’ from his verified account. The video has recitation of the poem reproduced above in the background. Allegation in complaint is that spoken words of poem incite people of one community against another, and it hurts a community's religious and social sentiments.
Findings of Court:
Courts must not be seen to regulate or stifle the freedom of speech and expression. As a matter of fact, Courts must remain ever vigilant to thwart any attempt to undermine the Constitution and the constitutional values, including the freedom of speech and expression.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly! Please provide the legal document content you'd like me to analyze, and I will identify the key points along with the appropriate references formatted as specified.
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECT
1. On 26th January 2025, our Constitution became 75 years old. One of the most important fundamental rights conferred on the citizens of India is under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution. It is the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. This case shows that even after 75 years of the existence of our Constitution, the law enforcement machinery of the State is either ignorant about this important fundamental right or does not care for this fundamental right.
2. The issue in this appeal revolves around a poem recited in the background of a video clip. The video clip was posted on social media by the appellant. The text of the poem has been reproduced in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment, which reads thus:
3. The appellant is a Member of the Rajya Sabha. The 2nd respondent is the first informant at whose instance a First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) was registered with Jamnagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 196, 197(1), 302, 299, 57 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’). In the complaint of the 2nd respondent, he stated that on 29th December 2024, on the occasion of the birthday of one Altaf Ghafarbhai Khafi, a member of the Municipal Corporation of Jamnagar, a mass wedding program was held at Sanjari Education and Charitable Trust. The said Municipal Councillor invited the present appellant to the function. A video of the event was made. The appellant posted the video on the social media platform ‘X’ from his verified account. The video has the recitation of the poem reproduced above in the background. The allegation in the complaint is that the spoken words of the poem incite people of one community against another, and it hurts a community's religious and social sentiments. It is alleged that the song had lyrics that incited people of other communities to fight for the community's rights. It is alleged that the video posted by the appellant created enmity between two communities at the national level and hatred towards each other. It was further alleged that it had a detrimental effect on national unity.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT
4. The appellant filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘the BNSS’) read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing the said FIR. While issuing notice on the said petition, the learned Judge had directed the appellant to file an affidavit disclosing the poem's source. Accordingly, an affidavit was filed by the appellant. In paragraphs 3 to 5 of the affidavit, he stated thus:
4. It is further stated that a plain reading of the song poem, it is a message of love and non-violence.
5. I further solemnly affirm that I am not the writer of the song/poem in question.
6. I state that the annexures produced with this affidavit are true copies of their originals.”
(Emphasis added)
5. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge rejected the petition by holding that as the investigation is at a very nascent stage, interference cannot be made in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC Online SC 315.
SUBMISSIONS
6. The submission of the appellant in support of the appeal is that none of the ingredients of the offences alleged against the appellant are m
(1) Hurting religious and social sentiments of one community – Acceptance of freedom to express a view which may not accord with mainstream are cardinal values – A society wedded to rule of law canno....
The court emphasized the need to protect freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and determined the FIR lacked basis for criminal charges under Sections 353(2) and 505(2).
The FIR lacks necessary ingredients for offences under Section 196(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, justifying its quashing due to vagueness.
The court established that mere expressions of political support do not constitute an offence under Section 153A IPC unless they promote enmity between distinct groups.
Every citizen has right to offer criticism for every decision of State – He has right to say he is unhappy with any decision of State – Every citizen of India has a right to be critical of action of ....
(1) Quashing Petition – In glaring cases of deprivation of liberty, Apex Court has entertained petitions under Article 32 of Constitution. (2) Sedition – A citizen has right to say or write whatever ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
