New Delhi, Feb 10 The Supreme Court on Monday raised questions over an FIR registered against Congress Rajya Sabha MP and poet Imran Pratapgarhi for allegedly disturbing social harmony.
The complaint dates back to January 3, 2025, when a complaint was filed at Jamnagar police station by an advocate’s clerk.
The complainant alleged that a video posted by Pratapgarhi on Instagram, which featured a poem, was inciting unrest and harming social peace.
“Please see the poem. It's ultimately a poem. It is not against any religion. It is not against any particular community. Please apply your mind to the poem," remarked a Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan as it adjourned a hearing on the request made by the Gujarat government’s counsel.
The matter will be heard next after three weeks.
Earlier on January 21, the Justice Oka-led Bench, in an interim order, shielded Imran Pratapgarhi from arrest as it issued a notice to the Gujarat government and posted the matter for further hearing on February 10.
In the meantime, the apex court ordered that no coercive steps would be taken against Pratapgarhi in any manner on the basis of the impugned FIR.
The Gujarat High Court had turned down Pratapgarhi's plea to quash the FIR lodged against him.
In its order, the Gujarat HC stated that as a lawmaker, Pratapgarhi must act responsibly and respect the legal process.
It further directed him to submit an affidavit clarifying the origin of the poem used in the video.
Pratapgarhi was asked to specify whether the poem was written by him or sourced from elsewhere, and if so, provide the details of its author.
During the hearing before the Gujarat High Court, Pratapgarhi claimed that the poem in question was either written by renowned poets Faiz Ahmed Faiz or Habib Jalib.
He stated that he had found the poem through online sources, including internet forums and chat rooms, but could not provide a definitive source.
Pratapgarhi presented screenshots from an AI tool (ChatGPT) to support his claims.
He argued that the poem, which promotes love and non-violence, was harmless and did not constitute a criminal act.
However, the prosecution disagreed, asserting that as a Parliamentarian, Pratapgarhi had a responsibility to act with caution and not to incite public unrest through social media.
The police had issued a notice to Pratapgarhi on January 4, asking him to appear on January 11, but he failed to cooperate with the investigation.
The Gujarat High Court highlighted that Pratapgarhi's action could not be defended simply based on his status as a public figure.
His failure to appear before the authorities and his lack of clarity about the origin of the poem were key factors in turning down his petition.
The Gujarat HC ultimately dismissed Pratapgarhi’s plea, reinforcing that lawmakers must uphold the law and act responsibly.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor