Imran Pratapgadhi vs State of Gujarat and ANR
The case is between Imran Pratapgadhi and the State Of Gujarat, embodying a critical question of Law, i.e., the importance of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. The central issue in this appeal concerns a poem recited in the background of a video clip, which was posted on social media by the appellant. A key question is whether the content of the poem, as reproduced in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment, has legal implications regarding free speech, defamation, obscenity, or any other relevant legal considerations. The appeal seeks to determine whether the posting of the video clip constitutes a violation of any law or if it falls within the permissible boundaries of expression.
The facts of the case were that A Rajya Sabha Member had moved the court seeking to quash an FIR filed against him for posting a video on the social media platform ‘X.’ The FIR, registered at Jamnagar Police Station under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleges that the background poem in the video incited communal disharmony and hurt religious sentiments. The appellant contended that the FIR should be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the High Court refused to intervene, citing the early stage of the investigation and directing the appellant to disclose the poem’s source.
The Supreme Court clarified the scope of preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, distinguishing it from the CrPC framework. The Court held that police officers are empowered to conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether a prima facie case exists before registering an FIR for offenses punishable with imprisonment between three and seven years. The judgment emphasized that law enforcement must uphold constitutional values, particularly the fundamental right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a). The Court ruled that literary and artistic expressions, including poetry, satire, and comedy, should not be curtailed based on subjective interpretations of offense or insecurity. It also reaffirmed the High Court’s power to quash FIRs even at an early stage if no offense is made out, rejecting any blanket rule barring such intervention.
The decision reinforces judicial protection of free expression against unwarranted state action. The case underscores the delicate balance between legal scrutiny and constitutional safeguards, particularly the fundamental right to free speech. Clarity in legal interpretation, especially distinguishing protected expression from actionable offence, is crucial for preserving democratic values while ensuring responsible discourse. As the matter unfolds, the legal fraternity and society at large anticipate a resolution that harmonizes constitutional freedoms with regulatory oversight.