Supreme Court Quashes FIR, Upholds Freedom of Speech: Poem Recitation Not Incitement Under BNS S.196 - 2025-03-29

Supreme Court Safeguards Free Speech, Quashes FIR Against MP for Poem Recitation

New Delhi, March 28, 2025 – In a significant judgment upholding the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, the Supreme Court of India today quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed against Member of Parliament Imran Pratapgarhi . Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan presided over the case, ruling in favor of the appellant, Pratapgarhi , and against the State of Gujarat and the initial complainant.

Case Background: Poem Sparks "Incitement" Allegations

The case originated from an FIR registered by the Jamnagar Police following a complaint concerning a video posted by Pratapgarhi on social media platform 'X'. The video, showcasing a mass wedding program, featured a poem recited in the background. The complainant alleged that the poem incited communal disharmony and hurt religious sentiments, leading to the invocation of several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), including Sections 196, 197(1), 299, and 302, relating to promoting enmity between groups, assertions prejudicial to national integration, and insulting religious feelings.

Arguments Presented: Freedom of Speech vs. Public Order

Senior Counsel for Pratapgarhi argued that the FIR was a violation of his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. They contended that the poem, upon plain reading, was about fighting injustice with love and sacrifice, promoting non-violence rather than disharmony. The poem, available in both Urdu and English translation in the judgment, does not refer to any specific religion, caste, or community, and thus cannot be construed as inciting hatred or enmity.

The Solicitor General of India, representing the state, took a neutral stance, leaving the decision to the Court. However, they did point out the inaccuracy of Pratapgarhi 's affidavit attributing the poem to renowned poets Faiz Ahmed Faiz or Habib Jalib.

Supreme Court's Reasoning: Poem's Message and Constitutional Duty

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the poem and the allegations, finding that none of the invoked sections of the BNS were applicable. The Court emphasized that the poem, in its plain interpretation, conveyed a message of resilience against injustice, advocating for non-violence and sacrifice.

"On plain reading of the original Urdu version and its English translation... This poem has nothing to do with any religion, community, region or race... It preaches non-violence. It says that if the fight for our rights is met with injustice, we will meet injustice with love." - Supreme Court Judgment, Paragraph 10

The judgment highlighted the crucial role of police officers in upholding constitutional ideals, including freedom of speech. It stressed that while Section 173(3) of the BNSS allows for preliminary inquiry in cases with potential sentences between 3 to 7 years, the initial assessment of a complaint, even under Section 173(1), must consider the fundamental right to free speech. The court referenced prior judgments, including Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. , to underscore the procedure for FIR registration and preliminary inquiries.

Drawing upon historical legal wisdom, the court quoted Justice Vivian Bose from Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Government , emphasizing that speech should be judged by the standards of "reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men," not by those with "weak and vacillating minds." This principle, reaffirmed in cases like Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra , establishes a high threshold for restricting speech. The court also reiterated the necessity of mens rea (criminal intent) in offences like those under Section 196 BNS, which was found to be absent in Pratapgarhi 's case.

Final Verdict: FIR Quashed, Freedom of Expression Reaffirmed

The Supreme Court concluded that the registration of the FIR was a "mechanical exercise" and an "abuse of the process of law," bordering on "perversity." It firmly stated that the High Court erred in not appreciating the message of the poem and intervening to quash the FIR at the initial stage.

> "Free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or groups of individuals is an integral part of a healthy, civilised society. Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution." - Supreme Court Judgment, Paragraph 38

The court unequivocally quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings, reinforcing the significance of freedom of speech and expression in a democratic society. The judgment serves as a reminder to law enforcement and the judiciary to be vigilant in protecting this fundamental right and to apply robust standards when assessing speech-related offenses.

This landmark decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding the constitutional right to freedom of speech, ensuring that artistic and literary expressions are not unduly restricted and that the state machinery respects the fundamental tenets of a liberal democracy.