Supreme Court Quashes FIR for Poem Recitation, Emphasizing Freedom of Speech and Expression

Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat which had refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against Imran Pratapgadhi, a Member of the Rajya Sabha, the present appeal is preferred.

The FIR was lodged by the state based on a video clip posted by the appellant on social media platform ‘X’. The video contained the recitation of a poem in the background, which the complainant alleged incited people of one community against another, hurt religious sentiments, promoted enmity, and was detrimental to national unity. The FIR was registered under Sections 196, 197(1), 302, 299, 57, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The appellant had approached the High Court for quashing of the FIR under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was turned down by the High Court, and hence the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

**Supreme Court examined whether the registration of the FIR for offenses under the BNS, on the basis of the recitation of a poem, was reasonable and whether the High Court was wrong in not quashing the FIR, keeping in view the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. **

The Supreme Court observed that the poem, upon a plain reading of both the original Urdu version and its English translation, has nothing to do with any religion, community, region, or race and does not affect national integration, jeopardise national security, or promote disharmony or hatred.

The Court observed that the poem recites against injustice and urges dealing with it on the lines of love and non-violence and symbolically giving a warning to the "throne" (Rulers) against wrongdoing. The Court concluded that the above-mentioned offences under Section 196, Section 197, Section 299, and Section 302 of the BNS were not attracted on bare reading of the poem and complaint. The Court further elaborated Section 173 of the BNSS regarding the lodging of FIRs in cognizable cases, mentioning a deviation from Section 154 of the CrPC by enabling preliminary inquiry for offences punishable with imprisonment between 3 to 7 years.

Supreme Court emphasized the need to maintain freedom of speech and expression in a healthy democracy and the responsibility of the courts to defend this basic right against unjustified state action. It reaffirmed the test of adjudging speech on the premise of understanding of reasonable, capable-minded people and the requirement of mens rea for offences involving promoting enmity.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned order of the High Court, and also quashed the FIR registered against the appellant. The Court concluded that no prima facie case was made out against the appellant for the invoked sections of the BNS and that the registration of the FIR was a clear abuse of the process of law, bordering on perversity.

The Supreme Court firmly reiterated the judiciary's duty to protect the fundamental rights of citizens, particularly the freedom of speech and expression, and to thwart any attempts to stifle legitimate expressions of view in the public domain, which are fundamental to a free society.

CORAM: Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
BETWEEN: Imran Pratapgadhi VS State of Gujarat & anr 2025 INSC 410
DOJ: 28-03-2025