Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat
Supreme Court of India · 28 March 2025 · 2 judges · 2025 INSC 410
The Court quashed an FIR against a Member of Parliament for posting a video with a poem, holding that no offence was made out and that police and courts must protect freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Facts
The appellant, a Member of the Rajya Sabha, was invited by a municipal councillor to a mass wedding programme in Jamnagar on 29th December 2024 and posted a video of the event on 'X'. A poem was recited in the background. On the second respondent's complaint, an FIR was registered at Jamnagar under Sections 196, 197(1), 302, 299, 57 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that the poem incited one community against another, hurt religious sentiments and harmed national unity. The appellant's petition under Section 528 BNSS read with Article 226 to quash the FIR was rejected by a Single Judge of the High Court on the ground that the investigation was at a nascent stage.
Questions before the Court
- Whether the FIR disclosed any offence under Sections 196, 197, 299, 302 and 57 of the BNS.
- When the police must register an FIR, and when a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS is appropriate, in cases involving speech protected by Article 19(1)(a).
- Whether the High Court can quash an FIR when the investigation is at a nascent stage.
What the Court held
- Read plainly, the poem has nothing to do with any religion or community, does not affect national integration and preaches non-violence. None of the offences alleged was made out; registration of the FIR was mechanical and an abuse of process.
- Mens rea must be read into Section 196 BNS, as it was into the pari materia Section 153-A IPC. Looking to the text of the words and their context, it was impossible to attribute any mens rea to the appellant.
- Section 173(3) BNSS departs from Section 154 CrPC: for offences punishable with three years or more but less than seven years, the officer may, with prior permission, hold a preliminary inquiry into whether a prima facie case exists. Where an offence under an Article 19(2) law is alleged, such permission should normally be given.
- To decide whether information discloses a cognizable offence under Sections 196, 197, 299 or 302 BNS, the officer must consider the meaning of the words; this is not a prohibited preliminary inquiry.
- The effect of words under Section 196 BNS is judged by the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous persons, not those of weak and oscillating minds or those who see criticism as a threat.
- There is no absolute rule against quashing an FIR at a nascent stage of investigation under Article 226 or Section 528 BNSS. The High Court's order and the FIR were set aside.
Why it matters
The judgment explains how Section 173(3) of the BNSS changes the law on registering FIRs laid down for Section 154 CrPC in Lalita Kumari, and directs that a preliminary inquiry be normally permitted where speech is alleged to fall within Article 19(2) laws. It states the standard for judging the effect of words under Section 196 BNS and stresses the duty of police and courts to protect freedom of expression.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
Provisions interpreted
- Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2), Constitution
- Article 226, Constitution
- Section 173, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Section 196, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Section 197, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Section 299, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Section 302, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Related judgments
- Explains Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2013)“Therefore, the law laid down by this Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.” (page 21)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat
- Case
- Criminal Appeal No. 1545 of 2025
- Decided
- 28 March 2025
- Bench
- Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment authored by Abhay S. Oka, J., which records that it is based on valuable inputs by Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Questions on this case
From free Law Maker papers. Try each one before you open the answer.
Question 1 · Landmark Judgments Practice Set 3
Consider the following statements based on Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025): 1. A police officer who reads a poem complained of, to decide whether it makes out an offence under Section 196 BNS, does not thereby hold a preliminary enquiry barred under Section 173(1) BNSS. 2. Where the alleged offence falls under a law covered by Article 19(2) and Section 173(3) BNSS applies, the superior officer should normally permit a preliminary enquiry. 3. A High Court cannot quash an FIR while the investigation is at a nascent stage. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A. 1 and 3 only
- B. 2 only
- C. 1 and 2 only
- D. 1, 2 and 3
Show the answer
C. 1 and 2 only
Statements 1 and 2 are conclusions (iii) and (v) in paragraph 42. Statement 3 is wrong: the Court held there is no absolute rule against a High Court quashing an FIR at a nascent stage under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) where no offence is made out on its face (conclusion (vii)).
Question 2 · Landmark Judgments Practice Set 3
According to Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025), when an offence under Section 196 of the BNS is alleged on the basis of spoken or written words, the effect of the words must be judged by the standard of:
- A. the particular complainant who felt hurt by the words used
- B. those who perceive every criticism as a threat to their position
- C. people of weak and oscillating minds who are easily swayed
- D. reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous individuals
Show the answer
D. reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous individuals
The Court held that the effect of the words is to be judged by the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous individuals, not those with weak and oscillating minds or those who see criticism as a threat to their power (para 42(vi)). Section 196 BNS corresponds to Section 153A IPC.