'It's A Poem With Message Of Non-Violence' : Supreme Court Questions Gujarat FIR Against Congress MP Over Poem

The Supreme Court on Monday (February 10) questioned an FIR registered by the Gujarat Police against Congress Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi over a poem posted on social media.A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, considering a petition filed by Pratapharhi challenging the Gujarat High Court's refusal to quash the FIR, observed that the police has not appreciated the true meaning of the poem."Please see the poem. The (High) Court has not appreciated the meaning of the poem. It's ultimately a poem," Justice Oka told Advocate Swati Ghildiyal, who was appearing for the State."It's ultimately a poem. It is not against any religion. This poem indirectly says even if somebody indulges in violence, we will not indulge in violence. That's the message which this poem gives that we will quietly suffer the violence but we will not do anything. So that somebody who indulges in violence will be dethroned. That's the message which the poem gives. It is not against any particular community," Justice Oka said.Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the petitioner, said, "The judge has done violence to the law. That is my worry."The bench ultimately adjourned the matter by three weeks at the request of the counsel for the State. "Please apply your mind to the poem. After all, creativity is also important," Justice Oka told the State's counsel while adjourning the matter.Earlier, the Court had granted interim relief to the petitioner by stopping all further steps in pursuance of the FIR. The FIR was registered over an Instagram post featuring a video clip with the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” running in the background.The FIR was registered by City A-Division Police Station, Jamnagar. The poem, argued by Pratapgarhi to be spreading a message of love and non-violence, allegedly contravened Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, and 57 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. Section 196 pertains to promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.The Gujarat High Court on January 17, 2025, refused to quash the FIR, emphasizing the need for further investigation and citing Pratapgarhi's non-cooperation with the investigation process as a factor in its decision.The High Court noted that the poem's tenor indicated something about the throne and that responses to the post suggested a potential disturbance in social harmony. The court underscored the expectation that all citizens, especially an MP, should behave in a manner that does not disrupt communal or social harmony.“Looking to the tenor of the poem, it certainly indicates something about the throne. The responses received to the said post by other persons also indicate that message was posted in a manner which certainly create disturbance in social harmony. It is expected from any citizen of India that he should behave in a manner where the communal harmony or social harmony should not be disturbed and the petitioner, who is a Member of Parliament, is expected to behave in some more restricted manner as he is expected to know more about the repercussions of such post”, the HC stated.The High Court observed that further investigation was necessary as Pratapgarhi had not cooperated with the investigation process despite being a lawmaker expected to uphold the law and failed to respond to notices issued on January 4 and 15, requiring his presence on January 11 and 22, respectively.The High Court emphasized the necessity of further investigation and referred to the principles laid out by the Apex Court in previous cases, stating that the court should not quash an FIR at the threshold.Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 1015/2025 Diary No. 3511 / 2025Case Title – Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat Click Here To Read/Download Order

'It's A Poem With Message Of Non-Violence' : Supreme Court Questions Gujarat FIR Against Congress MP Over Poem

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

The Court observed that the poem was not against any particular community and stressed the need to protect creativity.

Tags