The Supreme Court of India quashed an FIR registered against Congress Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi for sharing a poem on social media, reaffirming the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the verdict on March 28, 2025, setting aside the Gujarat High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR. The Court emphasized that criticism, dissent, and artistic expression must be protected even if they are unpopular or disliked by the majority.

Background of the Case

The case arose after Pratapgarhi posted a video on social media featuring a poem titled “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” (Listen, you bloodthirsty ones). The poem, recited in the background of a mass wedding event in Jamnagar, was alleged to promote enmity between communities and disturb social harmony.

Read Also:- Poem Not Against Any Religion: Supreme Court Clarifies in Case Involving Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi

An FIR was registered under Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, and 57 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which deal with:

• Promoting enmity between groups (Section 196)
• Prejudicial acts against national integration (Section 197)
• Outraging religious feelings (Section 299)
• Wounding religious sentiments (Section 302)
• Abetting offences (Section 57)

The Gujarat High Court refused to quash the FIR, stating that the poem’s reference to “the throne” and public reactions suggested potential harm to social harmony. However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, holding that no offence was made out.

1. Poem Did Not Incite Violence or Hatred :

The Court analyzed the poem’s content and concluded:

• It did not target any religion, caste, or community.
• It promoted non-violence, advocating love in response to injustice.
• The reference to “throne” was symbolic, criticizing oppressive authority, not inciting rebellion.

“The poem suggests that if the fight for rights is met with injustice, we will face it with love. It preaches non-violence.”
– Supreme Court judgment

Read Also:- Supreme Court Reserves Judgment on Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi's Plea to Quash Gujarat FIR

2. Police Must Respect Free Speech :

The Court criticized the police for hastily registering the FIR without considering constitutional rights:

• Police officers must abide by the Constitution and protect free speech.
• They should not act on hypersensitivity or political pressure.

“75 years into our republic, we cannot be seen as so fragile that a poem disrupts national unity.”
– Supreme Court judgment

3. Courts Must Protect Unpopular Speech :

The judgment stressed that judges must uphold free speech even if they dislike the content:

• Freedom of expression is essential for democracy.
• Criticism of the government or society must not be criminalized.
• Courts should not allow FIRs to suppress dissent.

“The right to dissent is integral to democracy. Every citizen has the right to criticize state actions.”
– Supreme Court judgment

Read Also:- Calcutta High Court Orders Police Deployment Outside Rabindra Bharati University Amid Protests

4. No Absolute Bar on Quashing FIRs at Early Stage:

The Court clarified that High Courts can quash FIRs even during preliminary investigations if:

• No offence is made out from the complaint.
• The FIR is clearly an abuse of law.

Criticism of Gujarat High Court’s Approach

The Supreme Court expressed disappointment with the Gujarat High Court’s reasoning, which had held:

• The poem could disturb social harmony.
• As an MP, Pratapgarhi should have been more cautious.

The Supreme Court rejected this view, stating:

• Mere public dislike does not justify legal action.
• Artistic and political expressions must be protected.

The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on March 3.

Case no. – Crl.A. No. 1545/2025

Case Title – Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat