Acting on a complaint, the Gujarat Police had booked Pratapgarhi on January 3.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court strongly criticized the Gujarat Police on Monday for registering an FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi over an Instagram post earlier this year. The court underscored that, even after 75 years of India's Constitution, law enforcement must develop a proper understanding of freedom of speech and expression.
A two-judge bench, comprising Justice A S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, reserved its judgment on Pratapgarhi’s appeal challenging the Gujarat High Court’s January 17, 2025, decision to not quash the FIR.
According to the prosecution, Pratapgarhi had uploaded a video on Instagram after attending a wedding in Jamnagar. The video featured the poem "Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno" playing in the background, which authorities deemed objectionable.
During Monday’s hearing, the Supreme Court expressed reservations over the police action. Justice Oka stated that the police should have shown more sensitivity before filing the FIR, emphasizing that the poem actually conveys a message of non-violence. "This has nothing to do with religion or anti-national activities. The police have shown a lack of sensitivity," he observed.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Gujarat, argued that different people may interpret the poem differently. However, Justice Oka countered, stating, "This is the problem. Creativity is no longer respected. A plain reading of the poem suggests that even in the face of injustice, one should respond with love. It tells those who are bloodthirsty to listen—that injustice will be met with love, not violence."
Mehta pointed out that Pratapgarhi had claimed his social media team was responsible for the post and argued that he must take responsibility for their actions. However, Justice Oka reiterated that the police should have first read and understood the content before taking legal action.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Pratapgarhi, urged the Supreme Court to comment on the Gujarat High Court’s ruling. Mehta opposed this request.
The Gujarat Police had registered an FIR against Pratapgarhi on January 3, acting on a complaint. He was booked under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 196 for promoting enmity between different groups based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and acting against harmony, Section 197 for assertions prejudicial to national integration, Section 299 for deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, Section 302 for uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious sentiments, and Section 57 for abetting an offense committed by the public or more than ten persons.
Following the FIR, Pratapgarhi approached the Gujarat High Court seeking its dismissal. However, the prosecution argued that the poem's words incited rebellion against the state’s authority. They also claimed that responses to Pratapgarhi’s post from various community members indicated serious repercussions that could disturb social harmony.
The high court, in dismissing Pratapgarhi’s plea, observed that the poem’s tenor "certainly indicates something about the throne," suggesting it could create unrest. It further noted that reactions to the post showed it was shared in a way that could disrupt social harmony.
"It is expected that every citizen of India behaves responsibly to ensure communal and social harmony. As a Member of Parliament, the petitioner is expected to be even more cautious, given his knowledge of the potential repercussions of such a post," the high court stated.
The court also ruled that further investigation was required in the case. It noted that Pratapgarhi had not cooperated with the inquiry, failing to appear before investigators despite notices issued on January 4 and January 15.
"As a lawmaker, the petitioner is expected to respect the legal process and cooperate with the investigation," the high court emphasized.