| Citation | Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 410 (2025 SCO.LR 6(4)) |
| Date | 10/07/2025 |
| Court Name | Supreme court of India |
| plaintiff/appellant/petitioner | Imran Pratapgadhi |
| defendant/respondent. | State of Gujarat |
| Judges | Justice Abhay S. Oka Justice Ujjal Bhuyan |
Facts Of the Case
Background of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, Imran Pratapgadhi, is a well-known poet and Member of Parliament. He was active in public protests and frequently spoke on issues of minority rights and social justice.
Complaint made:
In early 2024, Pratapgadhi approached the police in Gujarat alleging that:
- Derogatory, communal, and inciting remarks were made against him on social media.
- The remarks promoted hatred, posed threats to his safety, and constituted offences under IPC sections 153A, 295A, and 506, now codified under the BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).
- He submitted written complaints to multiple police stations requesting registration of an FIR.
Police Refusal:
Despite receiving a detailed complaint, the police refused to register an FIR.
- No written refusal or justification was provided by the police as required under Section 173(3) BNSS.
- The police informally claimed they would first conduct an inquiry, citing lack of clear evidence.
Legal Escalation:
- Pratapgadhi sent representations to the Director General of Police and Home Department but received no response.
- He then filed a petition before the Supreme Court, invoking his rights under Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) and Article 14 (Right to Equality), and citing violation of Section 173 of BNSS.
Petitioner’s Contention:
- The complaint disclosed a cognizable offence on its face.
- Under BNSS Section 173(1), police are mandatorily required to register an FIR immediately unless it falls under the exception in Section 173(3).
- The police failed to follow statutory procedures, amounting to dereliction of duty and suppression of the petitioner’s rights.
State’s Response:
- The State of Gujarat contended that they were within their discretion to verify the facts before registration.
- Claimed that no cognizable offence was clearly made out at the first stage.
- Argued that FIR registration should not be automatic in cases involving public figures or politically sensitive matters.
Issues of The Case
1.Whether the police is mandatorily required to register an FIR under Section 173(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence?
2. Whether the police can conduct a preliminary inquiry or delay FIR registration without following the safeguards laid out under Section 173(3) BNSS?
3. Whether refusal to register an FIR without recording reasons in writing and without DySP-level approval violates the fundamental rights of the informant under Article 21 and 14 of the Constitution?
4. Whether disciplinary or legal action should be taken against the police for non-compliance with Section 173 BNSS and denial of justice to the complainant?
Judgment:
1. Yes. The Supreme Court held that registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 173(1) BNSS if the complaint prima facie discloses a cognizable offence.
There is no discretionary power with the police to withhold registration in such cases. The Court reaffirmed that this principle is settled law, and BNSS only strengthens it with stricter accountability.
2. No. The Court clarified that preliminary inquiry is permitted only under Section 173(3) for offences punishable with 3 to 7 years imprisonment, and even then:
- Only after approval by a DySP or higher authority,
- The inquiry must be completed within 14 days.
In this case, the police did not follow any of these procedures, making their refusal illegal. The Court held this as a clear breach of procedural law under BNSS.
3. Yes. The Supreme Court held that such refusal violates the fundamental rights of the informant:
- Article 21: Right to life includes the right to fair and timely investigation.
- Article 14: Denial of FIR registration without valid reason amounts to arbitrary and unequal treatment.
The Court strongly criticized the police’s action as a denial of access to justice.
4. Yes. The Court directed:
- Immediate registration of FIR,
- Departmental proceedings against the police officer who refused the FIR without lawful justification,
- Compliance instructions to the Director General of Police to ensure adherence to Section 173 BNSS across the state.
This reinforced the principle of accountability and deterrence within the police system.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025 INSC 410), delivered its judgment on 28 March 2025 through a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. The Court ruled in favour of the petitioner and held that the registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 173(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, when a complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The police have no discretion to refuse registration in such cases. The Court further held that the Gujarat Police failed to follow the procedure laid down in Section 173(3) BNSS, which permits a preliminary inquiry only in limited circumstances—offences punishable with 3 to 7 years of imprisonment—and only after obtaining prior approval from an officer not below the rank of DySP, with a mandatory time limit of 14 days. Since none of these safeguards were followed, the police’s refusal to register the FIR was found to be illegal. The Court also observed that such refusal violated the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 21 (right to life and access to justice) and Article 14 (equality before the law) of the Constitution. As a result, the Court directed the police to immediately register the FIR, ordered departmental proceedings against the responsible officer, and instructed the Director General of Police, Gujarat, to ensure compliance with Section 173 BNSS across all police stations. The judgment reinforced the importance of police accountability and upheld the citizen’s right to legal remedy within the criminal justice system.
Reasoning
In arriving at its decision, the Supreme Court applied the legal framework under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and relevant constitutional principles. The Court began by reaffirming the well-settled rule that when a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the police are under a statutory obligation to register an FIR. This principle, previously established under Section 154 of the CrPC, remains firmly embedded in Section 173(1) BNSS. The Court emphasized that this duty is non-discretionary, and any deviation must strictly comply with the exceptions outlined in the statute.
The Court then examined whether the police were justified in refusing to register the FIR. Under Section 173(3) BNSS, the police may conduct a preliminary inquiry only when the offence is punishable with imprisonment between three to seven years, and even then, only with the prior written approval of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP). Additionally, such inquiry must be completed within 14 days. In the present case, the police neither sought nor obtained the required approval, nor did they initiate or complete a lawful preliminary inquiry within the prescribed period. Therefore, the Court concluded that the police had acted in violation of both the procedure and the spirit of the law.
From a constitutional standpoint, the Court reasoned that the refusal to register an FIR denied the petitioner access to the criminal justice system, thereby infringing upon Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to seek legal remedy and protection of law. Further, Article 14, which ensures equality before the law, was also violated, as the police acted in an arbitrary and unequal manner by denying the petitioner a remedy available to others in similar situations.
The Court also invoked broader policy considerations, stressing that citizen trust in the criminal justice system depends on the transparency, responsiveness, and accountability of the police. Allowing officers to ignore or delay FIR registration without consequence would undermine rule of law and embolden impunity. Therefore, the Court not only held the police action unlawful but also imposed disciplinary consequences to ensure institutional compliance and deterrence against future violations.
In conclusion, the Court’s reasoning rested on a clear and logical application of statutory provisions, adherence to constitutional values, and public interest considerations—all aimed at reinforcing the rights of individuals and promoting a fair, accessible, and accountable justice system.
Conclusion
The case of Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat is a landmark judgment that reinforces the mandatory nature of FIR registration under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and strengthens the rights of citizens against arbitrary police inaction. The Supreme Court, through a clear and structured interpretation of Section 173 BNSS, held that police authorities cannot deny FIR registration when a complaint discloses a cognizable offence. The judgment upholds the principle that access to justice is an essential facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, and arbitrary refusal by police undermines both statutory duty and constitutional values.
The Court’s directions not only provided relief to the petitioner but also sent a strong message on accountability, transparency, and procedural fairness in law enforcement. By imposing disciplinary consequences and mandating institutional reforms, the judgment marks a progressive step toward making the criminal justice system more citizen-friendly and legally responsive. This case serves as a crucial precedent for enforcing police responsibility and protecting individual rights under the new legal framework of BNSS.
REFERENCES
Supreme Court of India official website:
https://main.sci.gov.in
Direct judgment PDF:
Judgment PDF – 2025 INSC 410
Written by Tejas Chaudhary; an Intern under Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.