Written by Saloni Rani student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala.
INTRODUCTION
Section 196 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter, BNS) penalizes acts that promote enmity, hatred, or disharmony between different groups based on religion, race, language, caste, or community. This section come in light of maintaining social order, and peace in society. Section 299 further extends to penalize acts intended to outrage religious feelings which make it an offence to insult a religion or its belief through words, representation or means, whereby Section 302 makes it illegal to purposefully offend someone’s religious sentiments by using words, sounds, gestures, or objects that are in their line of sight or hearing. India has the highest diversity in world, and in order to maintain the cordial relationship between people of different caste, creed, sex, gender, etc. it is very essential to have the provisions in order to especially prevent minority’s rights. Therefore, it works under the constitutional ambit such as Article 14 (Right to Equality),19 (Right to freedom of speech & expression), 21(Right to Life).
This article shall analyse these penal provisions with the recent ruling of Supreme Court in Judgement of Imran Pratapgadhi v State of Gujarat and how the court has balanced Right to Speech & Expression with hate speech which is one of the debateable topic in countries.
IMRAN PRATAPGADHI V. STATE OF GUJARAT
The case is based on communal violence as the result of video recorded in weeding event. Member of Rajya Sabha attended the weeding at Gujarat whereby he posted the video on social media on platform ‘X’. The video clip relates to the weeding show itself, but at background features an Urdu Poem beginning with lines “Ae khoon ke pyaso, baat suno”. This has ignited tensions between communal groups which led the plaintiff to file FIR against this video. The Supreme Court has reiterated the speech to ascertain the commission of crime. The plaintiff alleged that the poem’s words were provocative, incited communal hatred, and disturbed national unity. The appellant contending the same approached the High Court filling the petition under Article 226 read with Section 528 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Court found him innocent and clarified the actual meaning of the words in comprehensive manner thereby, FIR registered was quashed. The court held that no cognizable offence was made out.
These raises two important questions firstly, whether the contents of the poem posted by the appellant amounted to any cognizable offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 196, 299) and secondly, whether the FIR and investigation violated the appellant’s fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
COURT’S DECISION
The Court ruled in favour of the accused by stating that “on plain reading of the poem, we find that the same has nothing to do with any religion, caste, community or any particular group.” The poem’s word does not ignite any communal violence when translated into English by the court. It only seeks to challenge the injustice made by ruler in earlier times. Furthermore, no allegations for any kind of communal movement or violence stands in name of accused which absolve him of any liability under the BNS. The court ruled that the poem does not pertain to any specific religion or caste, and it does not aim to promote any type of differences. Hence, the Court struck down the impugned order passed by High Court to not quash the FIR and it quashed the FIR filled on the name of accused which again does not communicate about any offence committed by him. Thus, the court highlighted the urgency to maintain balance between freedom of speech and reasonable restrictions.
ANALYSES
The case highlights the importance of balance between Freedom of speech and Expression and views of individuals while expressing their thoughts in any video. It lays emphasis on procedural aspects of criminal law and how an appeal can be filled by an aggrieved party in High Court under Section 528 BNSS. Furthermore, the court also expressed that it is duly bound to uphold and enforce the rights of all the citizens to promote the principle of Natural Justice. This case also says much about the communal violence and how it is perceived by people in the society. A simple video of weeding can evoke communal clashes according to some section of society, and at the same time be peaceful or neutral for other section of society. Howsoever, all must review the content before uploading and publication of the same because these rights can be misused by certain group of an individual to ignite the pressure of administration towards the matter especially if it is posted by a member of political party.
APPLYING THE PRECEDENTS
In Ramesh v. Union of India, it was held that expressions must be evaluated from reasonable & prudent person’s perspective and not the hypersensitive audiences. In Imran’s case, as ruled by Court the plain reading of the poem does not ignite any tensions. Thus, the actions of a rational man are given high credibility in court of law. This was again held by Court in Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Government, C.P. & Berar where the Court stated that any expression must be based on standards of reasonableness, strong-minded, and courageous man.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court’s decision in Imran Pratapgadhi v State of Gujarat is a watershed in free speech and police powers jurisprudence, rebalancing constitutional rights and procedural requirements. By making preliminary inquiries under Section 173 (3) of the BNSS mandatory for charges involving allegations under Article 19 (2) restrictions, the Court has put in place a check against hasty criminalization of speech. This intervention is not procedural but foundational, guaranteeing that the exercise of free expression specifically in artistic or public discussion is protected from capricious state action. The judgment reaffirms that police discretion under Section 173 (3) is not a license for doing nothing but a constitutional obligation to examine allegations with scrutiny. By making higher police officials responsible for authorising initial inquiries, the ruling establishes accountability so that FIRs do not turn into harassment tools. This is particularly important in public videos and recordings in which the distinction between legal dissent and cognizable offenses tends to be blurred by subjective assessments. The Court’s focus on the social worth of poetry, satire, and other medium of expression is a reminder that democratic strength finds nourishment in diversity of thought, even when disputed. Importantly, the judgment does not water down the duty to respond to cognisable offenses but situates it. By making a distinction between the registration of FIR immediately under Section 173 (1) and the requirement of prior assessment under Section 173 (3), the Court balances competing imperatives: the need for instant response in serious crimes and the need to keep speech safe from excessive policing. This balanced approach ensures the police continue to be guardians of law and liberty but not arbiters of community conscience. While the verdict does not free people from responsibility for speech inciting violence or against public order, it heightens the test for criminal prosecution. It is a welcome restraint on the increasing criminalisation of political and artistic expression, which has customarily been used to suppress opposition.