Poem Promoting Non-Violence Is No Crime: Supreme Court Quashes FIR, Says Police Must Respect Free Speech

The appellant, a Member of the Rajya Sabha, posted on X a video of a mass wedding function held at Jamnagar on 29th December 2024, with a poem recited in the background (paras 2-3). On a complaint that the poem incited one community against another and hurt religious sentiments, an FIR was registered under Sections 196, 197(1), 302, 299, 57 and 3(5) of the BNS (para 3). The High Court refused to quash it, holding that the investigation was at a very nascent stage (paras 4-5). In this Court the Solicitor General left the decision to the Court (para 7).

The poem refers to no religion, caste or language and, read plainly, asks that injustice be met with love (paras 10, 12). No ingredient of Sections 196, 197, 299 or 302 was attracted, and Section 57 could not apply (paras 14, 16-19). Under Section 173(1) BNSS, reading the words to decide whether they disclose a cognizable offence is not a forbidden preliminary inquiry (para 26). Section 173(3) departs from Section 154 CrPC, as read in Lalita Kumari, by allowing a preliminary inquiry into offences punishable with 3 to 7 years even where a cognizable offence is disclosed (para 23). Where a speech offence covered by Article 19(2) is alleged, such an inquiry should normally be permitted (para 29). The effect of words is judged by reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous people, not by those who see criticism as a threat (para 33). Registering this FIR was mechanical and bordered on perversity, and the High Court ought to have nipped it at the threshold (para 36). There is no absolute rule against quashing at the nascent stage of investigation (para 37). Courts must protect free expression even when Judges dislike the words (paras 38-39).