Appeal concerning the quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) against a Member of the Rajya Sabha, Imran Pratapgarhi. The core issue revolves around a poem recited in a social media video posted by the appellant, which was alleged to incite communal hatred and disrupt national unity under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The Supreme Court meticulously analyses the poem’s content and the applicable sections of the BNS, concluding that the poem does not promote enmity or affect national integration, but rather encourages non-violence and challenges injustice. The court also compares new legal provisions (BNSS) with older ones (CrPC) regarding the mandatory registration of FIRs and the permissibility of preliminary inquiries, particularly for offences related to speech. Ultimately, the judgment underscores the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, asserting that courts must vigilantly protect this right and cautions against a mechanical approach to FIR registration that could stifle legitimate dissent.
(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 196, 197(1), 302, 299, 57 and 3(5) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Section 173(3), 528 – Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a), 226, 51A – Quashing of FIR – Appellant is a Member of the Rajya Sabha – The 2nd respondent is the first informant at whose instance a First Information Report was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 196, 197(1), 302, 299, 57 and 3(5) of the ‘the BNS’ – The appellant posted the video on the social media platform ‘X’ from his verified account which has the recitation of the poem in the background – The allegation in the complaint is that the spoken words of the poem incite people of one community against another, and it hurts a community’s religious and social sentiments – It is alleged that the song had lyrics that incited people of other communities to fight for the community’s rights – It is alleged that the video posted by the appellant created enmity between two communities at the national level and hatred towards each other – It was further alleged that it had a detrimental effect on national unity – Held that the poem does not refer to any religion, caste or language – It does not refer to persons belonging to any religion – By no stretch of imagination, does it promote enmity between different groups – Fail to understand how the statements therein are detrimental to national unity and how the statements will affect national unity – On its plain reading, the poem does not purport to affect anyone’s religious feelings – It does not make or publish any assertion, counsel, plea or appeal likely to cause disharmony or feeling of enmity or hatred or ill will – The poem does not publish or make any false or misleading information – It is ridiculous to say that the act of the appellant is intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs – The poem only tells the rulers what the reaction will be if the fight for rights is met with injustice – An offence under Section 302 will be made out if any words are uttered with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person – Even this section is not applicable on its face – Even if it is assumed that the appellant has committed some offence, how he has abetted the commission of an offence by the public generally or by any number or class of persons exceeding ten – Even without taking recourse to sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS, the information furnished to the police officer did not attract the offences punishable under Sections 196, 197, 299 and 302 of the BNS – No prima facie case can be said to have been made out against the appellant qua the sections invoked – In such a case, registration of the FIR appears to be a very mechanical exercise and is a clear abuse of the process of law – In fact, registration of such FIR virtually borders on perversity – High Court ought to have nipped the mischief at the threshold itself – Impugned order deserves to be set aside – FIR No. 11202008250014 of 2025, registered with City A-Division Police Station, Jamnagar, and further proceedings based thereon are liable to be quashed.
(Para 12 to 19, 31, 36, 44)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Section 528 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Quashing of FIR – Investigation at nascent stage – Held that there is no absolute rule that when the investigation is at a nascent stage, the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction to quash an offence by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the CrPC equivalent to Section 528 of the BNSS – When the High Court, in the given case, finds that no offence was made out on the face of it, to prevent abuse of the process of law, it can always interfere even though the investigation is at the nascent stage – It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case as well as the nature of the offence – There is no such blanket rule putting an embargo on the powers of the High Court to quash FIR only on the ground that the investigation was at a nascent stage – If such embargo is taken as an absolute rule, it will substantially curtail the powers of the High Court.
(Para 37)
(C) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 196, 197(1), 302, 299, 57 and 3(5) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Section 173(3), 528 – Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a), 226, 51A – Quashing of FIR – The summary of conclusions by the Court are as follows:
(i) Sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS makes a significant departure from Section 154 of CrPC. It provides that when information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence which is made punishable for 3 years or more but less than 7 years is received by an officer-in-charge of a police station, with the prior permission of a superior officer as mentioned therein, the police officer is empowered to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter. However, under Section 154 of the CrPC, as held in the case of Lalita Kumari2, only a limited preliminary inquiry is permissible to ascertain whether the information received discloses a cognizable offence. Moreover, a preliminary inquiry can be made under the CrPC only if the information does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry. Sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS is an exception to sub-Section (1) of Section 173. In the category of cases covered by sub-Section (3), a police officer is empowered to make a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out for proceeding in the matter even if the information received discloses commission of any cognizable offence.
(ii) Under sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS, after holding a preliminary inquiry, if the officer comes to a conclusion that a prima facie case exists to proceed, he should immediately register an FIR and proceed to investigate. But, if he is of the view that a prima facie case is not made out to proceed, he should immediately inform the first informant/complainant so that he can avail a remedy under sub-Section (4) of Section 173.
(iii) In case of the offence punishable under Section 196 of the BNS to decide whether the words, either spoken or written or by sign or by visible representations or through electronic communication or otherwise, lead to the consequences provided in the Section, the police officer to whom information is furnished will have to read or hear the words written or spoken, and by taking the same as correct, decide whether an offence under Section 196 is made out. Reading of written words, or hearing spoken words will be necessary to determine whether the contents make out a case of the commission of a cognizable offence. The same is the case with offences punishable under Sections 197, 299 and 302 of BNS. Therefore, to ascertain whether the information received by an officer-in-charge of the police station makes out a cognizable offence, the officer must consider the meaning of the spoken or written words. This act on the part of the police officer will not amount to making a preliminary inquiry which is not permissible under sub-Section (1) of Section 173.
(iv) The police officers must abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals. The philosophy of the Constitution and its ideals can be found in the preamble itself. The preamble lays down that the people of India have solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic and to secure all its citizens liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. Therefore, liberty of thought and expression is one of the ideals of our Constitution. Article 19(1)(a) confers a fundamental right on all citizens to freedom of speech and expression. The police machinery is a part of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Moreover, the police officers being citizens, are bound to abide by the Constitution. They are bound to honour and uphold freedom of speech and expression conferred on all citizens.
(v) Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution carves out an exception to the fundamental right guaranteed under sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 19. If there is a law covered by clause (2), its operation remains unaffected by sub-clause (a) of clause (1). We must remember that laws covered by the clause (2) are protected by way of an exception provided they impose a reasonable restriction. Therefore, when an allegation is of the commission of an offence covered by the law referred to in clause (2) of Article 19, if sub-Section (3) of Section 173 is applicable, it is always appropriate to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. This will ensure that the fundamental rights guaranteed under sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 19 remain protected. Therefore, in such cases, the higher police officer referred to in sub-Section (3) of Section 173 must normally grant permission to the police officer to conduct a preliminary inquiry.
(vi) When an offence punishable under Section 196 of BNS is alleged, the effect of the spoken or written words will have to be considered based on standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous individuals and not based on the standards of people with weak and oscillating minds. The effect of the spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of the standards of people who always have a sense of insecurity or of those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position.
(vii) There is no absolute rule that when the investigation is at a nascent stage, the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction to quash an offence by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the CrPC equivalent to Section 528 of the BNSS. When the High Court, in the given case, finds that no offence was made out on the face of it, to prevent abuse of the process of law, it can always interfere even though the investigation is at the nascent stage. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case as well as the nature of the offence. There is no such blanket rule putting an embargo on the powers of the High Court to quash FIR only on the ground that the investigation was at a nascent stage.
(viii) Free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or group of individuals is an integral part of a healthy civilised society. Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. In a healthy democracy, the views, opinions or thoughts expressed by an individual or group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of view. Even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of the person to express the views must be respected and protected. Literature including poetry, dramas, films, stage shows including stand-up comedy, satire and art, make the lives of human beings more meaningful. The Courts are duty-bound to uphold and enforce fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Sometimes, we, the Judges, may not like spoken or written words. But, still, it is our duty to uphold the fundamental right under Article 19 (1)(a). We Judges are under an obligation to uphold the Constitution and respect its ideals. If the police or executive fail to honour and protect the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution, it is the duty of the Courts to step in and protect the fundamental rights. There is no other institution which can uphold the fundamental rights of the citizens.
(ix) 75 years into our republic, we cannot be seen to be so shaky on our fundamentals that mere recital of a poem or for that matter, any form of art or entertainment, such as, stand-up comedy, can be alleged to lead to animosity or hatred amongst different communities. Subscribing to such a view would stifle all legitimate expressions of view in the public domain which is so fundamental to a free society.
(Para 42)
Imran Pratapgadhi V. State Of Gujarat And Anr.
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 410: (DoJ 28-03-2025)
