CLAT 2026 Preparation Plan – Click Here to Start Smart   |   Target CLAT 2026 Crash Course – Exam Date Out, Enroll Now   |   CG Judiciary Prelims Test Series – Exam Date Out, Join Now   |   CG Judiciary Prelims Preparation Strategy – Click Here to Begin
         









Home / Indian Penal Code

Criminal Law

Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat & Anr.(2025)

    «
 23-Jul-2025

Introduction 

This case concerns the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It examines whether the recitation and sharing of a poem on social media by a Member of Parliament can constitute a criminal offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).  

Facts 

  • The appellant is a Member of the Rajya Sabha. 
  • On 29th December 2024, he attended a mass wedding ceremony in Jamnagar, Gujarat, organized on the birthday of Altaf Ghafarbhai Khafi, a Municipal Councilor. 
  • During the event, a poem in Urdu was recited that metaphorically spoke of facing injustice with love and sacrificing personal losses for truth. 
  • The event was recorded and later, on his verified account on ‘X’, the appellant posted a video of the program with the poem playing in the background. 
  • The poem was reproduced in para 13 of the impugned High Court judgment. 
  • A complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent (first informant) at Jamnagar Police Station, alleging that the video and poem: 
    • Incited communal disharmony. 
    • Hurt religious and social sentiments of a community. 
    • Created enmity between two communities at the national level. 
    • Had a detrimental effect on national unity. 
  • An FIR was registered against the appellant under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023: 
    • Sections 196, 197(1), 299, 302, 57, and 3(5) 
  • The incident occurred shortly before 26th January 2025, when the Indian Constitution completed 75 years, emphasizing the ongoing challenges to fundamental rights. 
  • The appellant filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 read with Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of the FIR. 
  • In compliance with court directions, the appellant submitted an affidavit, stating: 
    • The poem was not authored by him. 
    • The poem promoted love and non-violence, not hatred or incitement. 
  • The Gujarat High Court (Single Judge) rejected the petition, holding: 
    • The investigation was at a nascent stage. 
  • The appellant thereafter appealed before the Supreme Court. 

Issues Involved 

  • Whether the recitation and posting of the poem attracted criminal liability under Sections 196, 197(1), 299, 302, and 57 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 
  • Whether the registration of the FIR violated the appellant’s fundamental right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. 

Court’s Observations 

  • While allowing the appeal, Justice Abhay S. Oka (authoring the opinion) and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan concluded: 

Analysis of the Poem's Content: 

  • The poem had no reference to any religion, caste, or community. 
  • It promoted non-violence, and metaphorically encouraged sacrifice and resistance against injustice. 
  • It did not incite hatred, enmity, or social disharmony. 

Examination of Alleged Offences: 

  • Section 196 BNS: The poem did not promote disharmony or hatred between communities. 
  • Section 197: There was no imputation against any religious, racial, or regional group. 
  • Section 299: The allegation that the poem insulted religious beliefs was called "ridiculous". 
  • Section 302: No deliberate intent to wound religious feelings was found. 
  • Section 57: No act of abetment by the appellant was established. 

Police Duty and Preliminary Inquiry: 

The Court emphasized: 

  • Under Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a preliminary inquiry was mandatory before registering an FIR in speech-related cases punishable for three years or more but less than seven. 
  • The police failed to conduct such an inquiry despite the sensitivity of the matter involving freedom of speech. 

Criticism of High Court’s Approach: 

  • The High Court erred in not recognizing the importance of constitutional protection. 
  • Relying on the "nascent stage of investigation" was inappropriate when no offence was made out on the face of it. 
  • The High Court failed to exercise its power to prevent abuse of the legal process. 

Constitutional Importance of Free Expression: 

  • Free expression is vital to a healthy democracy. 
  • Courts and police are duty-bound under Article 51-A(a) to uphold constitutional ideals. 
  • Tolerance for dissent and unpopular views is essential to preserve liberty and constitutional democracy. 

Legal Principles Established: 

  • Police must conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS in speech-related matters. 
  • Courts must vigilantly protect constitutional freedoms and prevent misuse of criminal law. 
  • Speech must not be criminalized unless it clearly falls within the exceptions under Article 19(2). 

Conclusion 

At the heart of the matter lies the constitutional protection of poetic and political expression and the duty of the police and judiciary to uphold these rights against vague or unfounded criminal allegations. Posting a poem promoting sacrifice and non-violence does not attract offences under Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, or 57 BNS and  FIR registration in such cases is abuse of law.