Court says High Court “did not understand the meaning of the poem,” calls it non-communal
Team Clarion
NEW DELHI — In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Monday granted relief to Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi, questioning the FIR filed against him by the Gujarat Police over a poem he shared. The apex court observed that the poem was not targeted at any particular community and emphasised that the Gujarat High Court had failed to grasp its essence.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ajal Bhuyan heard the case, where senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Pratapgarhi, argued that the High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR was legally untenable. The bench remarked, “This is a poem, it is not against any religion. This poem indirectly says that even if someone indulges in violence, we will not indulge in violence… It is not against any particular community.”
The controversy stems from a 46-second video clip shared by Pratapgarhi on social media platform X (formerly Twitter) during a mass marriage ceremony in Jamnagar on January 3. The video featured him walking, showering flower petals, and waving his hands, with a song playing in the background. The Gujarat Police alleged that the lyrics of the song were inflammatory and hurt religious sentiments, leading to an FIR under Sections 196 (promoting enmity between groups) and 197 (insulting national unity) of the Indian Penal Code.
During the hearing, a lawyer representing the Gujarat government requested additional time to file a response. The bench, however, urged the state to make its stance clear before returning to court. The case has been adjourned for three weeks.
Earlier, on January 21, the Supreme Court had stayed the proceedings against Pratapgarhi, providing interim relief. The Congress MP had approached the apex court after the Gujarat High Court dismissed his plea to quash the FIR on January 17, stating that the investigation was still in its preliminary stages.
Pratapgarhi’s legal team maintained that the poem was being misinterpreted. “The High Court failed to see the broader message of peace and non-violence in the poem,” Sibal argued.
The case has sparked a debate on freedom of expression and the interpretation of artistic works. As the matter awaits further hearing, the Supreme Court’s observations have brought a fresh perspective to the controversy, highlighting the need for a nuanced understanding of creative expressions.
The next hearing is scheduled in three weeks.
