“It’s A Poem…Not Against Any Religion”: Why Supreme Court Said This?

A case was registered in Gujarat against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi for a poem he posted on his Instagram account. Today, the Supreme Court during the hearing of the case, remarked that the Gujarat High Court could not appreciate the meaning of the poem. 

After police registered the FIR against Pratapgarhi, the Congress MP approached the Gujarat High Court to quash the FIR. On January 17th, the Gujarat HC refused to quash the FIR and Pratapgarhi approached the Supreme Court.

The SC bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and A S Oka gave Gujarat state three weeks after the state urged the bench to give some more time to respond.

Justice A S Oka said during the hearing—“Please see the poem. The (High) Court has not appreciated the meaning of the poem. It’s ultimately a poem adding—“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 that the poem gives. It is not against any particular community.”

As per the prosecution, Pratapgarhi uploaded a video clip with the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” running in the background on Instagram. He reportedly did this after attending a wedding ceremony at Jamnagar in Gujarat.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Pratapgarhi, said that the judge had done violence to the law.

Justice Oka was also quoted in media as saying-- “Please apply your mind to the poem. After all, creativity is also important.”

The Gujarat Police, acting on a complaint, booked the MP on January 3 imposing various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which include section 196 (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, etc and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), section 197 (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration), section 299 (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), section 302 (uttering words, etc, with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings of any person) and section 57 (abetting commission of the offence by the public or by more than ten persons).

Pratapgarhi approached the HC to quash the FIR. The HC, as per media reports said in the proceeding-- “Looking at 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 (the) message was posted in a manner which certainly creates (s) 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 (a) post”—The HC said as per reports.