IMRAN PRATAPGADHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTUAL ASPECT - On 26/1/2025, our Constitution became 75 years old. One of the most important fundamental rights conferred on the citizens of India is under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution. It is the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. This case shows that even after 75 years of the existence of our Constitution, the law enforcement machinery of the State is either ignorant about this important fundamental right or does not care for this fundamental right.

(2.) The issue in this appeal revolves around a poem recited in the background of a video clip. The video clip was posted on social media by the appellant. The text of the poem has been reproduced in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment, which reads thus: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_91_LAWS(SC)3_2025_1.jpg</IMG>

(3.) The appellant is a Member of the Rajya Sabha. The 2nd respondent is the first informant at whose instance a First Information Report (for short, 'FIR') was registered with Jamnagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Ss. 196, 197(1), 302, 299, 57 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNS'). In the complaint of the 2nd respondent, he stated that on 29/12/2024, on the occasion of the birthday of one Altaf Ghafarbhai Khafi, a member of the Municipal Corporation of Jamnagar, a mass wedding program was held at Sanjari Education and Charitable Trust. The said Municipal Councillor invited the present appellant to the function. A video of the event was made. The appellant posted the video on the social media platform 'X' from his verified account. The video has the recitation of the poem reproduced above in the background. The allegation in the complaint is that the spoken words of the poem incite people of one community against another, and it hurts a community's religious and social sentiments. It is alleged that the song had lyrics that incited people of other communities to fight for the community's rights. It is alleged that the video posted by the appellant created enmity between two communities at the national level and hatred towards each other. It was further alleged that it had a detrimental effect on national unity.