SC: How did a poem on non-violence lead to criminal charges?

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Gujarat Police over the registration of an FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi for allegedly posting an edited video of a provocative song. The court inquired how a composition promoting non-violence had become the subject of criminal prosecution.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the Gujarat High Court, which had dismissed Pratapgarhi’s petition to quash the FIR, did not fully consider the meaning of the poem. “It’s ultimately a poem. 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,” the bench stated.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Pratapgarhi, argued that the high court’s ruling was flawed in law.

He submitted that the order failed to appreciate the actual content of the poem and its message.

Following a request from the state’s counsel for more time to file a response, the Supreme Court deferred the matter for three weeks. The bench instructed the counsel to “apply mind” and return with their submissions. On January 21, the apex court had stayed proceedings against Pratapgarhi in connection with the case and issued notices to the Gujarat government and complainant Kishanbhai Deepakbhai Nanda on the Congress leader’s appeal. Pratapgarhi had challenged the Gujarat High Court’s January 17 order, which dismissed his plea seeking quashing of the FIR on the ground that the investigation was at an early stage.

The case against Pratapgarhi originated from a mass marriage function in Jamnagar, Gujarat, where he was booked on January 3 for allegedly posting a video of a song described in the FIR as provocative and harmful to national unity. Pratapgarhi, who serves as the national chairman of the Congress’ minority cell, was charged under Section 196 (promoting enmity between different groups based on religion, race, etc.) and Section 197 (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The video clip, 46 seconds in duration, was uploaded by Pratapgarhi on X. It showed him being showered with flower petals while walking and waving to the crowd, with a background song that, according to the FIR, was provocative and hurt religious sentiments. In his petition, Pratapgarhi contended that the poem in the background conveyed a message of love and non-violence. He alleged that the FIR was a tool to harass him and was lodged with malicious intent.

“The FIR is based on frivolous and unsubstantiated grounds. A bare perusal of the FIR reveals that certain words were taken out of context,” his plea stated. Public prosecutor Hardik Dave opposed the petition, asserting that the words of the poem suggested a call for resistance against the state. He noted that Pratapgarhi was served a notice on January 4 to appear on January 11 but was unavailable, leading to another notice being issued on January 15. The Gujarat High Court, in its January 17 order, considered the prosecution’s material and stated that the social media post had elicited serious reactions from certain sections of the community, causing a disturbance to social harmony.