In a significant ruling that reinforces the sanctity of free expression in India’s constitutional framework, the Supreme Court has delivered a powerful judgment in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025). The case establishes critical guardrails for law enforcement agencies and lower courts when dealing with speech-related offenses, particularly those involving artistic expression.
Background
The case centered on an FIR filed against Imran Pratapgadhi, a Member of Parliament, who had posted a video on social media platform ‘X’ containing a poem in Urdu. Authorities alleged the poem promoted enmity between different groups (Section 196 BNS), made assertions prejudicial to national integration (Section 197 BNS), and deliberately outraged religious feelings (Section 299 BNS).
The poem, when translated, contained lines such as “If the fight for our rights is met with injustice, we will meet that injustice with love” and “If the bodies of our loved ones are a threat to your throne, we swear by God that we will bury our loved ones happily.”
The Court’s Analysis
Justice Abhay S. Oka, writing for the bench, conducted a meticulous analysis of the poem’s content and found it devoid of any language that could reasonably constitute the alleged offenses:
1. No religious or communal targeting: The Court found the poem made no reference to any religion, caste, or community, making it impossible for it to promote enmity between different groups.
2. Symbolic criticism of power: The reference to “throne” was interpreted as symbolic criticism of entities responsible for causing injustice, not an attack on any specific institution.
3. Non-violent message: Far from inciting violence, the Court found the poem actually advocated non-violence, encouraging people to “face injustice with love.”
Legal Standards for Evaluating Speech
The judgment articulates several important principles for evaluating speech under India’s penal provisions:
The “Reasonable Person” Standard
Drawing from precedent, the Court reaffirmed that alleged inflammatory speech must be judged by “standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous individuals, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view.”
This standard creates a higher threshold for prosecuting speech, protecting expressions that might make some uncomfortable but do not genuinely threaten public order.
The Mens Rea Requirement
The Court emphasized that offenses under Section 196 BNS (equivalent to Section 153A of the IPC) require mens rea—the deliberate intent to cause disharmony or enmity between different groups. Mere criticism, especially when symbolic and general, cannot satisfy this requirement.
Police Responsibilities in Speech Cases
Perhaps most significantly, the judgment established clear guidelines for police when handling complaints about potentially offensive speech:
1. Constitutional obligation: Police officers, as part of the State and as citizens, must “abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals,” including the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
2. Preliminary inquiry requirement: For cognizable offenses punishable by 3-7 years imprisonment, the Court strongly recommended that police conduct preliminary inquiries under Section 173(3) BNSS before registering FIRs in speech cases.
3. Evaluation of prima facie elements : Police must evaluate whether basic elements of alleged speech offenses are even present before proceeding with formal charges.
Implications for Artistic Expression
The judgment contains a powerful defense of artistic expression as essential to democracy:
“Free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or groups of individuals is an integral part of a healthy civilized society. Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.”
Notably, the Court extended this protection beyond poetry to “literature including poetry, dramas, films, stage shows including stand-up comedy, satire and art,” recognizing these as making “the lives of human beings more meaningful.”
The Role of Courts as Guardians of Free Speech
The judgment firmly establishes courts as the ultimate protectors of free speech rights:
“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.”
The Court rejected the notion that High Courts should refrain from quashing FIRs at early stages when fundamental rights are clearly being violated, emphasizing that early intervention is sometimes necessary to prevent abuse of process.
Conclusion
As India celebrates 75 years of constitutional democracy, this judgment serves as a timely reminder that robust protection of expression—even when critical of authority—remains essential. Justice Oka’s concluding observation resonates powerfully:
“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.”
