Poetic recitation without commentary or intent to incite hatred isn’t ‘promoting enmity’ or ‘public mischief’, the court declares
JABALPUR — In a sharp defence of free expression, the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court just slammed the brakes on an FIR filed against Faizan Ansari, a government school teacher, for forwarding an Urdu poem on WhatsApp. The court didn’t mince words: posting a poem, by itself, doesn’t fan communal flames.
Justice B P Sharma, who heard the case, quashed the FIR and made it clear that Ansari’s act of sharing “Be-haya,” penned by poet Shoaib Kaini, couldn’t be twisted into public mischief or hate speech. The verdict, first reported by Live Law on Friday, lands as a notable pushback against policing social media shares.
On July 22, 2025, Ansari shared a video recitation of the poem. That was enough for police to haul him in, confiscate his phone, and slap him with an FIR under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The charge? That the content was “objectionable” and “inappropriate for a teacher.” Ansari said the fallout didn’t stop there — he faced threats and harassment post-police action.
Justice Sharma took a hard look at the nazm and found zero grounds for the allegations. The poem, he noted, speaks to human rights issues and violence against women in Pakistan and other regions. It doesn’t single out any religion, community, or sect.
“A holistic reading of the nazm leaves no scope for construing it as offensive in the manner alleged in the FIR,” Justice Sharma remarked.
The bench also pointed out that “Be-haya” isn’t some underground text. It’s publicly available on Indian Urdu literature platforms and was even recited at the International Urdu Literary Festival. The FIR, the court said, showed no material that the post promoted hostility or disturbed public order.
The verdict delivered on April 30 drew a firm boundary: criminal liability for speech can’t rest on “subjective perceptions or speculative fears.” You need clear evidence of intent to incite violence or communal disharmony. Sharing a poetic recitation, with no added commentary or call to action, doesn’t meet that bar.
“The act of the petitioner in sharing a poetic recitation, without any additional commentary or intent to incite, cannot be construed as promoting enmity or public mischief,” the court held.
The High Court quashed the FIR and all related proceedings against Ansari. It also ordered the Superintendent of Police to provide protection to the teacher if needed, and demanded the immediate return of his seized mobile phone.
The order came at a time when teachers’ social media feeds are under a microscope in Madhya Pradesh. In a separate case, another government school teacher was suspended after a video mimicking Prime Minister Narendra Modi over LPG cylinder price hikes went viral.
The high court just reinforced that poetry on your phone isn’t a crime — intent matters, and so does context.
