The Supreme Court on Monday remarked that the Gujarat High Court had “not appreciated the meaning of the poem” accompanying Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi’s Instagram post over which the state police recently registered an FIR against him.
Hearing the MP’s appeal challenging the high court’s January 17 order refusing to quash the First Information Report (FIR), Justice A S Oka told the state’s counsel, “Please see the poem. The (High) Court has not appreciated the meaning of the poem. It’s ultimately a poem.”
The judge added, “It is not against any religion. This poem indirectly says even if somebody indulges in violence, we will not indulge in violence. That’s the message which the poem gives. It is not against any particular community.”
As per the prosecution, after attending a wedding function at Jamnagar, Pratapgarhi uploaded a video clip with the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” running in the background on Instagram.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Pratapgarhi, said, “The judge has done violence to the law.”
The state urged the two-judge bench, also comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, to give it some time to respond. Agreeing, the apex court adjourned the matter by three weeks.
Justice Oka told the state’s counsel, “Please apply your mind to the poem. After all, creativity is also important.”
Story continues below this ad
The Supreme Court had on January 21 issued notice to the state government and stayed any further action on the basis of the FIR filed in this regard.
The Gujarat Police, acting on a complaint, had booked the MP on January 3, 2025, under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including 196 (promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, etc and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), section 197 (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration), section 299 (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), section 302 (uttering words, etc, with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings of any person) and section 57 (abetting commission of offence by the public or by more than ten persons).
Pratapgarhi then moved the high court seeking to quash the FIR. The prosecution contended that the “words of the poem clearly indicate the rage to be raised against the throne of the state” and that “pursuant to the said post, the response received from the various persons of the community certainly indicates that the repercussion is also very serious and certainly disturbing to the social harmony of the society.”
The Congress MP, however, said “a plain reading of the song/poem’ would reveal that “it is a message of love and non-violence.”
Story continues below this ad
Answering a query on the source of the “poem”, he said that “based on available information, including sources reviewed through ChatGPT and public domain opinions, the poem is attributed to either Faiz Ahmed Faiz or Habib Jalib. However, as internet opinions remain divided, I am unable to conclusively ascertain the definite authorship between the two.”
The prosecution also claimed that he was not cooperating with the investigation.
Dismissing the MP’s plea, the high court said: “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 indicate that (the) message was posted in a manner which certainly create(s) disturbance in social harmony.”
“It is expected from any citizen of India that he should behave in a manner where the communal harmony or social harmony should not be disturbed and the petitioner, who is a Member of Parliament, is expected to behave in some more restricted manner as he is expected to know more about the repercussions of such (a) post,” the court stated.
Story continues below this ad
It added, “…on bare reading of the FIR in question and also the provisions of law which are invoked in the present case, I am of the opinion that further investigation is required in this matter. Further, as pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor, the petitioner has not cooperated in the process of investigation as pursuant to the earlier notice issued on 4.1.2025, he did not remain present on 11.1.2025 and again the second notice is issued on 15.1.2025 asking him to remain present on 22.1.2025 before the concerned investigating officer.”
“…the petitioner being a Member of Parliament is considered as maker of law and is expected that he should cooperate in the process of investigation and show high regards to the process of law in proper manner,” the court observed.
Disclaimer: We do not own any of the content, ideas, images, or text presented here. All rights belong to their respective owners. For more information and to view the original source, please visit the following link: