Case: Imran Pratapgadhi V. State of Gujarat

Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Facts

The whole thing started with an FIR (First Information Report) filed by the Gujarat Police against Imran Pratapgadhi. He's a member of the Rajya Sabha, and the FIR was about a post he put up on Instagram. The post included a video clip, and playing in the background was a poem called "Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno."

The police claimed this post broke certain sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Specifically, they said it went against Section 196, which deals with promoting enmity between different groups.

Issues:

The court had to consider a few key questions:

• • Is it necessary for the police to conduct a preliminary inquiry before filing an FIR, especially in cases involving speech and expression?
• • Did the FIR against Imran Pratapgadhi violate his freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution?
• • Did Section 173(3) of the BNSS change the old rules about FIRs, particularly Section 154 of the CrPC?

Analysis

The Supreme Court really dug into the matter. Here's what they considered:

• • Importance of Preliminary Inquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS: The court emphasized that Section 173(3) of the BNSS brought in a significant change from section 154 of CrPC. The court held that Section 173(3) is an exception to Section 173(1), which provides for immediate registration of FIR for cognizable offences. Section 173(3) allows a preliminary inquiry to be conducted within 14 days before registering an FIR, with the prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists for proceeding. The court held that a preliminary enquiry is especially important in cases involving speech and expression, punishable with three to seven years, to prevent people from being unfairly targeted for what they say or write and no frivolous FIRs are filed.
• • Protection of Freedom of Speech in a Democratic Society: The court stressed how important it is to protect freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which forms the cornerstone of a civilized society. The court held that just because some people might find certain words offensive, that doesn't automatically mean those words should be criminalized. The judgment reaffirmed the value of free thought, art, and satire in a democracy. Poems, comedy, or criticism cannot be criminalized unless they clearly cross the line into unlawful incitement. Judges noted: “We may not like the words, but it is our duty to protect the right to say them.” The police officers are constitutionally bound to protect freedom of speech.
• • Section 196 of BNS (similar to Section 153A IPC): The Court noted that Section 196 of the BNS (similar to Section 153A IPC) requires that the actual impact of the speech must be assessed, not just its words. It emphasized that the police have to look at the whole context of the words used. They need to figure out if the words truly incite violence or hatred. It's not enough to just look at the words in isolation.
• • No Prima facie Case made out: The court examined the poem in Pratapgadhi's post. They concluded that the poem, in itself, wasn't inflammatory. It didn't seem to promote communal tension or incite violence. The alleged offence centred around a poem recited by the petitioner, which the FIR claimed was provocative. The content did not refer to any religion, caste, or community. Thus, no reasonable person would interpret the poem as inciting hatred—a key requirement under Section 196. The Supreme Court found no material to support the FIR under any of the invoked sections (196, 197, 299, 302 BNS). Even without invoking the procedural shield of Section 173(3), the substance of the FIR lacked merit. The language of the poem did not amount to hate speech, nor did it insult any religion or religious belief.

Judgment

In the end, the Supreme Court decided to quash the FIR against Imran Pratapgadhi. They felt that it violated his right to free speech, which is protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The court made it clear that simply making allegations about someone's speech doesn't automatically justify filing an FIR.

Conclusion

This case is a pretty important one. The Supreme Court's decision sets a precedent that should help protect people's freedom of speech and expression. By requiring a preliminary inquiry in certain cases, especially in cases involving speech and expression, the court is trying to make sure that the police don't misuse their power and that the criminal justice system isn't used to stifle legitimate expression. Basically, it reinforces the idea that people should be able to speak their minds without constantly fearing legal repercussions.