What was the main legal question in this case?

Whether posting a poem that encourages love and non-violence can attract criminal liability under the BNS and limit free speech under Article 19(1)(a).

Did the Supreme Court find any offence under the BNS?

No. The Court held that the poem did not promote hatred or enmity and did not fit Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, or 57 BNS.

What did the Court say about police procedure in speech cases?

Police must first do a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS before registering an FIR in such speech-related matters.

Why is this case important for students?

It shows how courts protect free speech, especially when words do not cross the clear limits under Article 19(2).

What was the Court’s view of the High Court order?

The High Court should have stopped the process early because no offence was made out on the face of the record.

Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2025)

Free Speech BNS & BNSS India 23 Jul 2025 Supreme Court Bench: Abhay S. Oka & Ujjal Bhuyan ~8 min read

Article 19(1)(a) • BNS §§ 196, 197, 299, 302, 57 • BNSS § 173(3)

Author: Gulzar Hashmi Location: India Tags: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)

Quick Summary

A Member of Parliament posted a video of a public event with a poem playing in the background. The poem spoke about love, non-violence, and standing up to injustice. An FIR was filed under several BNS sections, claiming the poem hurt sentiments and created communal disharmony. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that the poem did not target any group, did not promote hatred, and did not attract criminal liability. It also reminded police to conduct a preliminary inquiry under BNSS § 173(3) in such speech cases before registering an FIR.

Issues

Does the poem and its posting amount to an offence under BNS §§ 196, 197(1), 299, 302, or 57?
Was the FIR a disproportionate limit on free speech under Article 19(1)(a)?

Rules

Constitutional Rule

Article 19(1)(a) protects free speech. Limits under Article 19(2) are narrow and must be clearly met.

Procedural Rule

BNSS § 173(3) requires a preliminary inquiry in speech cases before FIR, where the punishment falls in the stated bracket.

BNS Pointers

BNS §§ 196, 197, 299, 302, 57 concern communal disharmony, group insults, religious feelings, and abetment. The Court found none applied to the poem here.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline illustration of the case events

29 Dec 2024

At a mass wedding in Jamnagar, a poem in Urdu is recited. It uses metaphors of love, patience, and sacrifice against injustice.

Social Media

The MP shares a video of the program on his verified ‘X’ account with the poem in the background.

FIR

A complaint alleges the post hurts sentiments, spreads disharmony, and harms national unity. FIR is registered under several BNS sections.

High Court

Single Judge declines to quash, saying investigation is at a “nascent stage”.

Supreme Court

On appeal, the Supreme Court allows the case, finding no offence made out and reminding police about BNSS § 173(3) preliminary inquiry.

Arguments

Appellant

The poem is not about any religion or community.
It promotes love and non-violence; it does not incite hatred.
Posting the video is protected speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Police did not do the BNSS § 173(3) preliminary inquiry.

Respondent

The post hurts sentiments and creates disharmony.
It allegedly fuels enmity at a wider level.
Investigation should proceed since the stage is early.

Judgment

Held: Appeal allowed. FIR does not disclose any offence under the cited BNS provisions.

BNS § 196 / § 197: Poem does not promote hatred or target any group.
BNS § 299 / § 302: No intention to wound religious feelings; claim of insult was called “ridiculous”.
BNS § 57: No abetment shown.
BNSS § 173(3): Police should have done a preliminary inquiry in such speech cases.

Note: High Courts must act to prevent misuse of criminal process when the complaint itself shows no offence.

Ratio

Speech that uses general metaphors of love, sacrifice, and non-violence, without targeting any identifiable group, cannot be criminalised under BNS provisions meant to curb hatred or enmity. Courts and police must safeguard free speech and apply procedural checks like BNSS § 173(3) before restricting it.

Why It Matters

Strengthens protection for artistic and political expression.
Stops criminal law from being used against peaceful speech.
Gives a clear reminder to police about preliminary inquiry in speech cases.

Key Takeaways

Poetry of love and peace ≠ hate speech.

BNSS § 173(3) preliminary inquiry first.

Courts must block misuse of BNS at the threshold.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: L-P-Q — Love, Procedure, Quash.

Love: Poem speaks love & non-violence, not hate.
Procedure: BNSS § 173(3) inquiry is a must.
Quash: If no offence appears, stop it early.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Can posting the poem attract liability under BNS and restrict Article 19(1)(a)?

Rule: Article 19(1)(a) with limits under 19(2); BNSS § 173(3) preliminary inquiry; BNS §§ 196, 197, 299, 302, 57 target hate, group insults, and abetment.

Application: Poem has no group target, promotes peace; thus BNS offences do not apply. Police did not follow the inquiry step.

Conclusion: FIR unsustainable; free speech protected; process must not be used to chill lawful expression.