Supreme Court rebukes Gujarat Police for lodging FIR against Congress Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi over poem posted on social media
The Supreme Court on Monday pulled up the Gujarat Police for lodging an FIR against Congress Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi over a poem posted by him on social media.
The Supreme Court on Monday reserved its verdict on a petition filed by Congress Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi seeking to quash an FIR registered by the Gujarat Police over a poem posted by him on social media.
Noting that the poem ‘Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno’ propagated a message of non-violence and had nothing to do with either religion or any anti-national activity, the Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan orally observed that the State Police ought to have shown sensitivity before lodging the FIR.
Noting that nobody had any respect for creativity, the Bench observed that the poem only wanted to say that even while suffering injustice, a person should bear it with love. The poem’s literal meaning was that blood-thirsty people should also listen to the people’s voices. Even if the fight for justice was met with injustice, people should bear that injustice with love, it added.
The Apex Court noted that police must show at least some sensitivity. They must read and understand. Even after 75 years of the Constitution, Police must at least now understand the freedom of speech.
Appearing for the State of Gujarat, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that people might have understood the meaning of the poem differently. The petitioner had submitted that the poem was uploaded by his social media team. However, he should take responsibility for the action of the team, added the SG.
Representing the petitioner, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal urged the Court to make certain observations about the Gujarat High Court’s judgment that refused to quash the case.
When SG Mehta attempted to defend the High Court, Sibal said that
there was nothing wrong in the Apex Court criticising a lower court, which it has done during earlier several judgements.
The top cour of the country had earlier questioned the FIR, saying that the police and the High Court did not appreciate the real meaning of the poem.
The Bench had also stayed all proceedings going on against the accused, in pursuance of the FIR.
The Jamnagar Police had lodged an FIR against the Congress leader over an Instagram post featuring a video clip with the poem ‘Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno’ running in the background.
As per Pratapgarhi, the poem was spreading a message of love and non-violence.
He was booked under Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, and 57 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. Section 196 pertained to promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence and language, as well as doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.
Stressing on the need for further probe, the Gujarat High Court refused to quash the FIR on January 17, 2025, on the grounds of non-cooperation of Pratapgarhi with the investigation process.
The High Court noted that the poem’s tenor indicated something about the throne. The 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 did 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 indicates that the message was posted in a manner to create disturbance in social harmony.
It said the citizens of India should behave in a manner where the communal harmony or social harmony should not be disturbed and the petitioner. The Member of Parliament was expected to behave in a more restricted manner as he was expected to know more about the repercussions of such post, added the High Court.
It said further investigation was necessary as Pratapgarhi had not cooperated with the investigation process.
Despite being a lawmaker, he failed to respond to notices issued on January 4 and 15, requiring his presence on January 11 and 22, respectively, noted the High Court.
Referring to the principles laid out by the Apex Court in previous cases, it said a court should not quash an FIR at the threshold.