SC pulls up Gujarat Police over case against MP Imran Pratapgarhi: ‘must understand freedom of speech, expression’

According to the prosecution, after attending a wedding function at Jamnagar, Pratapgarhi uploaded a video with the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” running in the background. The words in the poem were deemed objectionable.

Hearing the appeal on Monday, the bench – also comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan – expressed its reservation over the police action.

Justice Oka said the police should have shown some sensitivity before lodging the FIR. He was of the view that the poem propagates a message of non-violence. “This actually promotes non-violence. It has nothing to do with religion, this has nothing to do with any anti-national activity. Police have shown lack of sensitivity,” he said.

Appearing for Gujarat, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that people may have appreciated its meaning differently.

To this, Justice Oka said, “This is the problem. Now nobody has any respect for creativity. If you read it plainly, it says that even if you suffer injustice, you suffer it with love… Those who are blood-thirsty, listen to us. Even if the fight for justice is met with injustice, we will meet that injustice with love.”

Mehta said that Pratapgarhi’s contention was that it was his social media team which uploaded the video and that he ought to take responsibility for the team’s actions.

Justice Oka said the police ought to have shown sensitivity in the matter. “They must at least read and understand.”

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Pratapgarhi, urged the court to say something about the high court’s judgment. Mehta opposed this.

Acting on a complaint, the Gujarat Police had booked Pratapgarhi on January 3 under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 (putations, 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).

The MP 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.”

Dismissing the Congress MP’s plea, the high court had said, “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.”

The court had observed, “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 had added, “…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 as pursuant to the earlier notice issued on 4.1.2025, he did not remain present on 11.1.2025 and again the second notice is issued on 15.1.2025 asking him to remain present on 22.1.2025 before the concerned investigating officer.”

“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,” the court had stated.