Parties and roles: Imran Pratapgarhi is the appellant/applicant who initiated or carried the matter to the Supreme Court. State of Gujarat & Anr. is the respondent opposing the relief or defending the challenged action, decision, law or proceeding. The labels “plaintiff” and “defendant” are generally not used here because this is an appellate, special or Supreme Court proceeding. A Member of Parliament posted a short poem about injustice with video footage from a public event. Police treated the post as potentially inflammatory without first carefully evaluating the words, their context and the statutory threshold for promoting enmity. The case concerned the risk that criminal process itself chills lawful artistic and political expression even if prosecution eventually fails. The Court addressed how police should screen speech allegations before invoking cognisable offences. Procedural setting: Dec 2024-Jan 2025: A poem and video posted after a mass wedding led Gujarat Police to register an FIR alleging promotion of enmity. | Jan 2025: Gujarat High Court declined to quash. | 28 Mar 2025: Supreme Court quashed the FIR and explained police duties in speech cases. The central problem before the Court was did the post satisfy the ingredients of promoting enmity or related offences under the BNS? What preliminary responsibility do police have to read, hear and objectively assess alleged speech before registering an FIR? The controversy was considered in the framework of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, ss.196 and related provisions; Code of Criminal Procedure/Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita principles, together with Constitution arts.19(1)(a), 19(2), 21 and 22. The wider importance of the case lies in freedom of speech; chilling effect; objective audience test; police duty; abuse of process; tolerance of dissent.

Pratapgarhi argued the poem promoted non-violence and resilience, contained no attack on a community, and was protected speech. The State argued the overall video and circumstances could disturb harmony and investigation should continue. Competing positions in context: Imran Pratapgarhi's position: as the appellant/applicant, Imran Pratapgarhi sought the relief indicated by the questions of law and challenged the opposing action or interpretation. The claim was that the Court should apply the governing provisions consistently with Freedom of speech; chilling effect; objective audience test; police duty; abuse of process; tolerance of dissent. State of Gujarat & Anr.'s position: as respondent, State of Gujarat & Anr. resisted that relief, defended the impugned measure or decision, or proposed a narrower interpretation of the Court's power and the applicable law. The Court therefore had to test these submissions against Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, ss.196 and related provisions; Code of Criminal Procedure/Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita principles and Constitution arts.19(1)(a), 19(2), 21 and 22, the record of the proceedings and binding precedent. This summary states the principal controversy in accessible language; the official judgment remains authoritative for counsel-specific submissions and paragraph references.

The FIR was quashed. Police must examine the actual words and context and apply the perspective of reasonable, strong-minded persons, not hypersensitive viewers. Protected criticism, poetry and dissent cannot be criminalised merely because officials or some listeners dislike them. Where statutory ingredients are absent, constitutional courts must prevent misuse of criminal process. Effect of the decision: the ruling explains or applies Freedom of speech; chilling effect; objective audience test; police duty; abuse of process; tolerance of dissent and binds the parties to the operative directions made in Criminal Appeal No. 1545/2025. It also guides lower courts and public authorities on materially similar questions under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, ss.196 and related provisions; Code of Criminal Procedure/Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita principles. Scope and caution: only the ratio decidendi and operative directions of the signed judgment are binding; summaries should not be treated as substitutes for the judgment, separate opinions, later review orders or subsequent precedent.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, ss.196 and related provisions; Code of Criminal Procedure/Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita principles

Constitution arts.19(1)(a), 19(2), 21 and 22

Freedom of speech; chilling effect; objective audience test; police duty; abuse of process; tolerance of dissent