On January 21, the Supreme Court stayed the proceedings against Pratapgarhi, staying any immediate legal actions against him. The top court issued a notice to the Gujarat government and complainant Kishanbhai Deepakbhai Nanda, allowing Pratapgarhi to appeal the January 17 ruling of the Gujarat High Court, which had dismissed his petition to quash the FIR. The High Court had said that the investigation was still at an early stage.
NEW DELHI: On February 10, the Supreme Court raised concerns regarding an FIR filed against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi by the Gujarat Police. The FIR was registered after Pratapgarhi allegedly posted an edited video of a provocative song.
The Supreme Court bench, led by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, questioned the reasoning behind the Gujarat High Court’s dismissal of Pratapgarhi’s plea to quash the FIR.
The bench observed that the Gujarat High Court had not fully understood the meaning of the poem in question.
They said, “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.”
Kapil Sibal, a senior advocate representing Pratapgarhi, argued that the Gujarat High Court’s decision was legally flawed. He stated that the court had “violence” to the law. The top court, after hearing the arguments, decided to defer the matter for three weeks after the Gujarat government’s counsel requested time to file a response.
The bench instructed the state’s counsel to “apply mind” and come back to the court with a well-considered response.
This case began when an FIR was filed against Pratapgarhi on January 3. The Congress leader was accused of sharing an edited video during a mass marriage event in Jamnagar, Gujarat, which allegedly featured a provocative song.
The video showed flower petals being showered on Pratapgarhi while a song was playing in the background. The lyrics of this song were claimed by the FIR to be harmful to national unity and offensive to religious sentiments.
Pratapgarhi, who is the national chairman of the Congress’ minority cell, was booked under serious charges. These included Section 196 (promoting enmity between different groups on the basis of religion, race, etc.) and Section 197 (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) of the Indian Penal Code.
In his plea to quash the FIR, Pratapgarhi explained that the poem in the video carried a “message of love and non-violence.”
He claimed that the FIR was filed with malicious intent to harass him, stating, “The FIR is used as a tool to harass him and lodged with a ‘malicious intent and malafide motives’.”
Pratapgarhi argued that his social media post did not incite violence or hatred between communities, and no case was made out against him.
He claimed that the FIR was based on “frivolous and unsubstantiated grounds,” pointing out that certain words from the poem had been taken out of context.
On the other hand, Public Prosecutor Hardik Dave opposed the petition, arguing that the words of the poem suggested anger directed at the “throne of the state.”
He explained that after Pratapgarhi’s social media post, responses from members of various communities indicated that the repercussions were “very serious” and had the potential to disturb social harmony in society.
On January 21, the Supreme Court stayed the proceedings against Pratapgarhi, staying any immediate legal actions against him. The top court issued a notice to the Gujarat government and complainant Kishanbhai Deepakbhai Nanda, allowing Pratapgarhi to appeal the January 17 ruling of the Gujarat High Court, which had dismissed his petition to quash the FIR. The High Court had said that the investigation was still at an early stage.
CASE TITLE:
Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat
SLP(Crl) No. 1015/2025 Diary No. 3511 / 2025
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
