The Supreme Court observed that the Gujarat High Court had misunderstood the meaning of a poem uploaded by Congress Member of Parliament Imran Pratapgarhi. The apex court stressed that the poem in question does not target any specific religion or community, and its underlying message promotes non-violence.

The Bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, noted that the earlier court had failed to appreciate the essence of the creative work. As Justice Oka put it,

Read Also:- Supreme Court Overturns Conviction, Citing Investigation Flaws & Weak Prosecution

"The [High] Court has not even appreciated the meaning of the poem and it is ultimately a poem."

Case Background

Imran Pratapgarhi had been booked by the Gujarat police following a complaint lodged by an advocate’s clerk. According to the Deccan Herald, It was alleged that a video posted on social media, featuring the poem with the lines "ae khoon ke pyase baat suno...", incited discontent. The police invoked several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including:

Section 197: Pertaining to assertions prejudicial to national integration.

Section 299: Related to deliberate acts intended to outrage religious sentiments.

Section 302: Concerning utterances meant to wound the religious feelings of any individual.

Following the refusal of the Gujarat High Court on January 17 to quash the FIR, Pratapgarhi approached the Supreme Court. Earlier, the apex court had already stayed the proceedings in this case, emphasizing the early stage of the investigation.

Read Also:- AMU Student Challenges FIR in Allahabad High Court Over Alleged 'Objectionable' Speech

Justice Sandeep N. Bhat commented in a prior order,

"As the investigation is at a very nascent stage, I find no reason to exercise my powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

The court also observed that responses to the social media post indicated that the manner in which the message was delivered could disturb social harmony. The High Court had remarked on the higher responsibility expected of public figures, stating,

Read Also:- Ratan Tata A Respected Name That Needs Protection from Unauthorized Use - Delhi High Court

"It is expected from any citizen of India that he should behave in a manner where the communal harmony or social harmony should not be disturbed and the petitioner, who is a Member of Parliament, is expected to behave in some more restricted manner as he is expected to know more about the repercussions of such post."

During the hearing before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Pratapgarhi, expressed his discontent with the earlier judgment, asserting,

"The [High Court] judge has done violence to the law! That is my worry."

In response, when the State requested additional time to present its arguments, the Court advised the state counsel to re-examine the poem carefully. In its own words,

"Just apply your mind to the poem. Ultimately, creativity is also important."