Introduction:

The Supreme Court has issued a notice in the case of Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat (SLP(Crl) No. 1015/2025), challenging the Gujarat High Court’s refusal to quash an FIR registered against Congress MP and poet Imran Pratapgarhi. The FIR pertains to an Instagram post featuring a video clip with the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” running in the background. The FIR alleges violations of Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, and 57 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, citing potential disruption of social harmony. A bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan granted interim relief, directing no further steps be taken about the FIR until further orders and set February 10, 2025, as the returnable date for the notice.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Imran Pratapgarhi, criticized the Gujarat High Court’s dismissal of the petition without issuing notice or offering the petitioner a fair hearing. He argued that the poem in question, intended to promote love and non-violence, had been misinterpreted. Sibal highlighted that the FIR was devoid of concrete evidence showing intent to disrupt harmony, contending that social media responses to the post cannot be attributed to the petitioner’s intent. He further emphasized the lack of cooperation allegations were baseless as no proper opportunity was provided to the petitioner to respond. Additionally, he questioned the High Court’s approach in refusing to quash the FIR at the preliminary stage, despite established judicial precedents requiring courts to intervene when no prima facie case exists.

Arguments of the Respondent:

The State of Gujarat, defending the FIR, argued that the poem’s tenor and language indicated provocative undertones targeting “the throne,” suggesting a potential incitement to disrupt social harmony. The state emphasized that as a Member of Parliament, the petitioner bore an additional responsibility to maintain communal harmony. The Gujarat High Court’s decision, they argued, was justified as further investigation was required. The state claimed that the petitioner had failed to respond to investigation notices dated January 4 and 15, 2025, summoning him on January 11 and 22, thus demonstrating non-cooperation. The respondents maintained that the FIR’s registration followed due process and highlighted the importance of assessing the poem’s impact on society.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner had not been arrested and issued notice to the respondents, seeking their response by February 10, 2025. The Court also directed that no further steps be taken regarding the FIR until the next hearing. While granting interim relief, the Court refrained from making any observations on the merits of the case, emphasizing the need for a balanced consideration of free speech and public order. Justice Abhay Oka noted that the Gujarat High Court’s refusal to issue notice to the petitioner before dismissing the petition raised procedural concerns. The Court assured the petitioner of a fair hearing and directed all parties to present their arguments comprehensively in the next hearing.