No action against MP Imran Pratapgarhi: Supreme Court shields Congress leader in Instagram case

As per the prosecution, Pratapgarhi had attended a wedding function at Jamnagar. After attending the event, he uploaded a video clip with the poem ‘Ae Khoon Ke Pyase Baat Suno’ running in the background on Instagram.

Appearing for the appellant, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal told the Supreme Court, “What are we coming to and where are we going to? In a matter like this, I need your lordships to say something.”

Acting on the complaint by a lawyer’s clerk who found the post objectionable, the Gujarat Police booked Pratapgarhi on January 3 under sections 196 (promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), 197 (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration), 299 (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), 302 (uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings of any person) and 57 (abetting commission of offence by the public or by more than ten persons of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Pratapgarhi then moved the high court, seeking quashing of the FIR where the prosecution contended that the “words of the poem clearly indicate the rage to be raised against the throne of the state” and that “pursuant to the said post, the response received from the various persons of the community certainly indicates that the repercussion is also very serious and certainly disturbing to the social harmony of the society”.

However, Pratapgarhi said “a plain reading of the song/poem” would reveal that “it is a message of love and non-violence”.

Answering a query on the source of the “poem”, he said “based on available information, including sources reviewed through ChatGPT and public domain opinions, the poem is attributed to either Faiz Ahmed Faiz or Habib Jalib. However, as internet opinions remain divided, I am unable to conclusively ascertain the definite authorship between the two.”

The prosecution also claimed that he was not cooperating with the investigation.

Dismissing the Congress MP’s plea, the high court said that “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 (the) message was posted in a manner which certainly create(s) 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 (a) post.”

The high court added, “As the further discussion on merits of the matter will certainly prejudice the rights of either of the parties, therefore, this Court is not entering into the same. However, on bare reading of the FIR in question and also the provisions of law which are invoked in the present case, I am of the opinion that further investigation is required in this matter.”

“Further, as pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor, the petitioner has not cooperated in the process of investigation…,” the court said, adding, “In this regard also, it is noteworthy to mention that the petitioner being a Member of Parliament is considered as maker of law and is expected that he should cooperate in the process of investigation and show high regards to the process of law in proper manner.”