Poetry Is Not a Crime: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Over Imran Pratapgadhi's Urdu Poem and Resets the Test for Speech Offences

On 29 December 2024, the MP attended a mass wedding organised by a charitable trust in Jamnagar, Gujarat, and posted a 46-second video of the event on X with a recitation of the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” playing in the background. On a private complaint that the poem incited communal disharmony and hurt religious sentiments, the police registered an FIR under Sections 196, 197(1), 299, 302 and 57 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Gujarat High Court, in January 2025, refused to quash the FIR, reasoning that the poem's tenor and the reactions to the post could disturb social harmony, that an MP ought to act with greater responsibility, and that investigation was at a nascent stage. The MP appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Key Question Before the Court

Does an FIR lie against a poem — and what must the police do before registering speech-offence FIRs under the new criminal codes?

The Poem Had Nothing to Do With Religion

Reading the poem plainly, the Court found it referred to no religion, caste or community: its imagery of thrones and sacrifice spoke to oppression and non-violent resistance generally. Section 196 BNS requires both the promotion of enmity on specified grounds and mens rea — following Manzar Sayeed Khan and Patricia Mukhim — and neither existed; the charges of outraging religious feelings were baseless for the same reason. Crucially, the Court held that the effect of words must be judged by the standards of “reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous” persons — the classic test of Justice Vivian Bose in Bhagwati Charan Shukla — and not of those with weak and vacillating minds. Registering the FIR mechanically was a clear abuse of the process of law.

A New Discipline for Speech FIRs Under the BNSS

The judgment then turned to the police. Where a cognizable offence based on spoken or written words is punishable by three to seven years, Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita permits a preliminary inquiry with the approval of a superior officer — and the Court held it would always be appropriate to use that option in speech cases, so that constitutionally protected expression is not criminalised at the threshold. The police, as part of the State, are bound to respect and uphold the ideals of the Constitution, including the liberty of thought and expression; and courts, the Bench reminded, must be at the forefront of protecting fundamental rights — even where judges do not like what is said.

What the Court Actually Held

• The appeal was allowed; the Gujarat High Court's order was set aside.
• The FIR and all consequent proceedings were quashed — no offence under Sections 196, 197(1), 299, 302 or 57 BNS was made out.
• The poem is expression protected by Article 19(1)(a); mens rea is essential for Section 196 BNS and was absent.
• For speech offences punishable by three to seven years, a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS is the appropriate first step before an FIR.
• Offending speech is tested against reasonable, strong-minded and courageous standards, not timid ones.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It is the first major free-speech charter under the BNS–BNSS regime, building a screening layer into FIR registration for speech offences.
• It arms poets, comedians, journalists and critics against weaponised FIRs — and has already been applied in later speech cases.
• It reaffirms that criticism of the government, by itself, is not incitement.
• It binds the police to constitutional ideals at the station-house stage, not merely at trial.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Defence Counsel

• In speech FIRs punishable by three to seven years, make the absence of a Section 173(3) BNSS preliminary inquiry the first ground of challenge.
• Plead the courageous-minds standard and absence of mens rea; insist on a plain reading of the words before any innuendo is supplied.

For Police and Prosecutors

• Before registering a speech-offence FIR, read the material as a whole, record a preliminary inquiry with superior approval, and test the complaint against Article 19(1)(a) — not against the loudest reaction to it.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

An Urdu recitation, “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno”, playing in the background of a 46-second wedding-event video posted on X. The Court found it referred to no religion, caste or community.

Where the offence is punishable by three to seven years, conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS with a superior officer's approval — the Court held this is always the appropriate course in speech cases.

By the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous persons — not of weak and vacillating minds — applying the Bhagwati Charan Shukla test.

Conclusion