'Poem Not Anti-National, Police Must Read & Understand' : Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Congress MP's Plea To Quash Gujarat FIR

The Supreme Court on Monday (March 3) reserved judgment on the petition filed by Congress Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi seeking to quash an FIR registered by the Gujarat Police over a poem posted by him on social media.

During the hearing, a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan orally observed that the poem "Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” was actually propagating a message of non-violence and said that the police ought to have shown sensitivity before lodging the FIR.

"This actually promotes non-violence. It has nothing to do with religion, this has nothing to do with any anti-national activity. Police has shown lack of sensitivity," Justice Oka said.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Gujarat, submitted that the people might have understood the meaning of the poem differently.  Justice Oka replied, "This is the problem. Now nobody has any respect for creativity. If you read it(poem) plainly, it says that even if you suffer injustice, you suffer it with love." Justice Oka explained that the poem's literal meaning was this - Those who are blood thirsty listen to us. Even if the fight for justice is met with injustice, we will meet that injustice with love.

The SG said that the petitioner's argument was that the poem was uploaded by his social media team. However, he has to take responsibility for the action of the team, the SG added.

Justice Oka said that the police ought to have shown sensitivity in the matter. "Some sensitivity has to be shown by the police. They must at least read and understand. 75 years after the existence of the Constitution, freedom of speech and expression has to be at least now understood by the police."

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, urged the Court to make certain observations about the Gujarat High Court's judgment which refused to quash the case.

"Look at what the High Court Judges says. Your lordships must say something on that," Sibal said, adding that the High Court also ought to have shown sensitivity.

Defending the High Court, SG Mehta said, "I have been fair to the court but let's not travel to making comments against the High Court. My learned friend says where is the country heading..."

"Supreme Court criticises many judgements. What is wrong with that?," Sibal retorted.

During the previous hearing as well, the Court had questioned the FIR, saying that the police and the High Court did not appreciate the real meaning of the poem.

Earlier, the Court had granted interim relief to the petitioner by stopping all further steps in pursuance of the FIR. The FIR was registered over an Instagram post featuring a video clip with the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” running in the background.

The FIR was registered by City A-Division Police Station, Jamnagar. The poem, argued by Pratapgarhi to be spreading a message of love and non-violence, allegedly contravened Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, and 57 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. Section 196 pertains to promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.

The Gujarat High Court on January 17, 2025, refused to quash the FIR, emphasizing the need for further investigation and citing Pratapgarhi's non-cooperation with the investigation process as a factor in its decision.

The High Court noted that the poem's tenor indicated something about the throne and that responses to the post suggested a potential disturbance in social harmony. The court underscored the expectation that all citizens, especially an MP, should behave in a manner that does not disrupt communal or social harmony.

“Looking to the tenor of the poem, it certainly indicates something about the throne. The responses received to the said post by other persons also indicate that message was posted in a manner which certainly create disturbance in social harmony. It is expected from any citizen of India that he should behave in a manner where the communal harmony or social harmony should not be disturbed and the petitioner, who is a Member of Parliament, is expected to behave in some more restricted manner as he is expected to know more about the repercussions of such post”, the HC stated.

The High Court observed that further investigation was necessary as Pratapgarhi had not cooperated with the investigation process despite being a lawmaker expected to uphold the law and failed to respond to notices issued on January 4 and 15, requiring his presence on January 11 and 22, respectively.

The High Court emphasized the necessity of further investigation and referred to the principles laid out by the Apex Court in previous cases, stating that the court should not quash an FIR at the threshold.

Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 1015/2025 Diary No. 3511 / 2025

Case Title – Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat

Click Here To Read/Download Order