The Supreme Court has granted interim protection to Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi, shielding him from any coercive action in connection with charges of promoting communal disharmony.
The charges stem from a video clip he shared on social media, which allegedly stirred religious tensions.
The apex court, led by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, directed the state of Gujarat to respond to Pratapgarhi’s plea challenging the Gujarat High Court's decision, which had refused to quash the FIR against him.
The case centres around an incident in Jamnagar, where on January 3, Pratapgarhi, the national chairman of Congress' minority cell, was booked for multiple serious charges.
These included promoting enmity between different religious and racial groups, making statements harmful to national integration, and insulting religious groups or their beliefs.
The police action followed the posting of a 46-second video on his X handle, which featured a poem titled "ae khoon ke pyase baat suno…" running in the background.
A local resident of Jamnagar filed the FIR, accusing Pratapgarhi of using a song that was provocative and damaging to national unity, as well as disrespectful to religious sentiments. In response to the allegations, Pratapgarhi moved the Gujarat High Court, arguing that the poem carried a message of love and peace rather than promoting violence.
However, the Gujarat High Court, in its January 17 ruling, rejected Pratapgarhi’s plea to quash the FIR. The court stated that further investigation was necessary, citing the Congress MP's lack of cooperation with the inquiry process.
Despite this, Pratapgarhi stood by his position, emphasising that the poem was a symbol of non-violence and harmony, not hatred.
The Supreme Court’s intervention comes as a significant development in the case. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Pratapgarhi, expressed concern over the speed at which the initial order had been passed without proper notice.
In response, Justice Oka assured that a short notice would be issued, with the case set to be heard on February 10. Importantly, the Supreme Court has ensured that no further action will be taken based on the FIR in the meantime.
Pratapgarhi’s case has drawn attention to the broader issue of how public figures, particularly politicians, are scrutinised for their public statements and social media content.
In the current climate, social media posts, especially those featuring controversial or politically charged messages, are often met with intense legal and public scrutiny. This has raised questions about freedom of expression and the line between advocacy for peace and the potential for inciting unrest.
In this instance, the controversy surrounding Pratapgarhi’s video illustrates the complexity of balancing free speech with the need for national cohesion. The debate hinges on whether his poem, which he defends as promoting peace, could be interpreted differently by others as inciting division.
The outcome of the case will likely set a significant precedent for future legal challenges involving politicians and their use of social media.
It also highlights the evolving nature of the law in dealing with issues of communal harmony and the sensitive intersection between political expression and the potential for public unrest.
Follow us
