Supreme Court’s Landmark Free Speech Judgment 2025: Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat – Poetry, FIRs, and the Future of Article 19(1)(a)
In March 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a powerful and far-reaching judgment in Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1545 of 2025), reaffirming the centrality of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The case revolved around a poem recited in the background of a social media video uploaded by Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament Imran Pratapgarhi.
What started as an FIR in Gujarat alleging promotion of enmity, disturbance of national unity, and outraging religious sentiments, eventually turned into a constitutional moment for Indian free speech law. The Supreme Court not only quashed the FIR but also reminded law enforcement authorities and the judiciary of their constitutional duty to uphold liberty of expression.
This commentary unpacks the case in detail — court, judges, provisions involved, issues, facts, arguments, judgment, and the wider implications for India’s democratic fabric.
📌 Case Details
Court: Supreme Court of India – Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Title: Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1545 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 28 March 2025
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka (authoring), Justice Ujjal Bhuyan concurring
Legal Provisions Involved:
- Article 19(1)(a) & 19(2) – Freedom of Speech & Reasonable Restrictions
- Sections 196, 197(1), 299, 302, 57, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)
- Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (equivalent to CrPC §482)
- Precedents: Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021), Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014), Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra (2007), Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya (2021), Bhajan Lal case (1992).
❓ Issues Before the Court
-
Whether the poem recited and posted by the appellant amounted to promoting enmity or disharmony under Section 196 of the BNS?
-
Whether the words used could be considered imputations prejudicial to national integration under Section 197 BNS?
-
Whether the poem outraged religious sentiments (Sections 299 & 302 BNS) or amounted to abetment (Section 57 BNS)?
-
Whether the FIR was a legitimate exercise of law enforcement or a violation of Article 19(1)(a) read with Article 19(2)?
📖 Facts of the Case
On 26th January 2025, as India celebrated 75 years of its Constitution, questions of free speech took center stage in this case.
The Event & The Poem
On 29th December 2024, during a mass wedding program organized in Jamnagar, Gujarat, Imran Pratapgarhi was invited by a municipal councillor. A video of the event, showing the function, carried in its background a recited Urdu poem. The poem, in essence, spoke of fighting injustice with love, using sacrifice as strength, and warning “the throne” (rulers) against perpetuating oppression.
The FIR
A local complainant (Respondent No. 2) alleged that the poem’s words were provocative, incited enmity between Hindus and Muslims, and threatened national unity. The FIR was registered under multiple provisions of the BNS 2023, including Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, 57, and 3(5).
High Court Proceedings
Imran approached the Gujarat High Court under Article 226 and Section 528 BNSS, seeking quashing of the FIR. He argued that the poem was neither authored by him nor aimed at any community, and that it was actually a message of love and non-violence. He even filed an affidavit attributing the poem to Urdu poets like Faiz Ahmed Faiz or Habib Jalib, though he could not conclusively prove authorship.
The High Court, however, dismissed the petition relying on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021), holding that since the investigation was at a “nascent stage,” interference was not warranted.
Supreme Court Appeal
Imran filed a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court order and the very registration of the FIR.
⚖️ Arguments of the Parties
Appellant – Imran Pratapgarhi
The poem contains no reference to religion, caste, or community, nor does it promote enmity.
-
It is, on its plain reading, a message of non-violence: it urges meeting injustice with love and sacrifice, not violence.
-
Registering an FIR for such expression violates the fundamental right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a).
-
Reliance on Manzar Sayeed Khan and Patricia Mukhim: effect of words must be judged by the standards of reasonable, strong-minded persons, not weak or insecure minds.
-
High Court mechanically applied the “nascent investigation” principle without considering the lack of prima facie offence.
Respondents – State of Gujarat (via Solicitor General)
The Solicitor General took a measured stand, leaving the matter to the Court’s wisdom.
-
However, he criticized Imran’s affidavit attributing the poem to Faiz or Jalib, calling it factually baseless.
-
Defended police action: once a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, FIR registration is mandatory.
-
Argued that High Court rightly refused to interfere at the threshold stage.
🏛️ Judgment and Judicial Reasoning
The Supreme Court, in a detailed 54-page judgment authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka, allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR.
1. Plain Reading of the Poem
The Court translated and analyzed the Urdu poem.
-
Held that it was a symbolic critique of injustice; references to “throne” were metaphorical, not religious.
-
Far from inciting violence, it encouraged sacrifice and non-violent resistance.
2. No Offence Made Out Under BNS
Section 196 BNS (Promoting enmity): Not attracted; poem unrelated to religion/caste.
-
Section 197 BNS (National integration): No imputation against any group; no misinformation.
-
Section 299 & 302 BNS (Outraging/wounding religious feelings): “Ridiculous” to claim insult to religion; no reference to faith.
-
Section 57 BNS (Abetment by public): No instigation or abetment present.
3. Mens Rea is Essential
- Following Manzar Sayeed Khan and Patricia Mukhim, the Court held that intention to promote enmity or hatred is essential.
-
No mens rea could be attributed to Imran; poem was expressive, not malicious.
4. High Court’s Error
The Gujarat High Court erred by relying mechanically on the “nascent investigation” argument.
-
The Supreme Court clarified: Courts can quash FIRs at the threshold if no offence is made out, even at an early stage.
5. Constitutional Duty of Police & Courts
Police must be sensitized to respect Article 19(1)(a) and the ideals of the Constitution.
-
FIRs cannot be registered mechanically in matters of speech without testing them against the reasonable restrictions in Article 19(2).
-
Courts, especially constitutional courts, must zealously protect free speech, even if they personally dislike the words expressed.
6. Broader Reflections
Quoted Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (as Bombay HC judge) in Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoy play case: unpopular or minority views must be protected.
-
Democracy cannot survive if every dissent or criticism of the State is criminalized.
✅ Conclusion
The Imran Pratapgarhi judgment is a watershed moment in free speech jurisprudence. By quashing a politically sensitive FIR, the Supreme Court reinforced that:
Poetry, literature, and dissent are vital to democracy.
-
FIRs cannot be weaponized to silence criticism or artistic expression.
-
Article 19(1)(a) must be interpreted generously, with Article 19(2) restrictions applied narrowly.
-
Courts have a proactive role in protecting citizens from abuse of process.
In a time where online speech is increasingly under scrutiny, this case reaffirms that the Constitution values liberty of thought and expression above the anxieties of the State.
For students of law, activists, and citizens alike, Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat (2025) will be remembered as a landmark precedent safeguarding freedom of speech in India’s digital age.
❓ FAQs on Imran Pratapgarhi Case
1. What was the Imran Pratapgarhi Supreme Court case about?
It was about an FIR registered in Gujarat against MP Imran Pratapgarhi for a poem recited in a video, alleging it promoted enmity and hurt religious sentiments.
2. What did the Supreme Court decide?
The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, holding that the poem did not promote enmity, hatred, or insult religion.
3. Which constitutional right was central to the case?
Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Speech and Expression.
4. Why is this judgment important?
It reinforces the protection of dissent and artistic expression in India, preventing the misuse of FIRs to stifle free speech.
5. What does it mean for future cases?
The judgment sets a precedent that courts can quash FIRs at an early stage if no offence is made out, protecting citizens from harassment.
