Why in the News?

Recently, the Supreme Court of India gave an important decision in the case of Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat (2025 INSC 410). The judgment focused on balancing the fundamental right to freedom of speech with the police’s duty to register a First Information Report (FIR).

What is the significance of procedural criminal law in ensuring principled criminalisation?

• Prevents Abuse of Power: Procedural criminal law enforces checks on state power by ensuring investigations, arrests, and prosecutions follow due process and protect fundamental rights (e.g., right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution). Eg: In Imran Pratapgarhi vs State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR because the police violated the procedural requirement under Section 173(3) of BNSS, thereby infringing upon the right to free speech.
• Filters Out Malicious Prosecutions: By setting guidelines (like preliminary inquiries), procedural law prevents unnecessary or politically motivated criminal cases from being registered and escalating into full investigations or arrests. Eg: Section 173(3) allows police to conduct a 14-day preliminary inquiry in certain cases before registering an FIR, thereby avoiding the criminalisation of non-serious or false complaints.
• Enhances Accountability: Police have significant discretion in the criminal process. Procedural law regulates this discretion, ensuring it is used transparently and fairly, preventing arbitrary or biased action. Eg: Without proper procedural checks, police may over-police minor infractions while ignoring more serious offences, leading to imbalanced enforcement of law.

Why did the Supreme Court quash the FIR against Imran Pratapgarhi?

• Violation of Procedural Safeguards: The police failed to conduct a mandatory preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR, as required under Section 173(3) for offences punishable with less than seven years. Eg: The alleged offence related to a poem posted on social media, which falls within this category. The police were required to first assess whether a prima facie case existed — they did not.
• Protection of Freedom of Speech: The FIR was filed for the alleged posting of an “inflammatory” poem, but the Court noted it was an exercise of free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Eg: Criminal proceedings against protected speech must pass a higher threshold. The Court emphasized that misuse of law to curb free expression violates constitutional freedoms.
• Prevention from Frivolous Criminalisation: The Court found that the police had acted in a hasty and unjustified manner, triggering criminal law machinery for what could be a frivolous or politically motivated complaint. Eg: The judgment cited the intent of Section 173(3) — to avoid over-criminalisation in cases involving less serious offences, especially those entangled with fundamental rights.

Way forward: 

• Strengthen Police Training and Accountability: Enhance training on procedural law and human rights for police to ensure responsible use of discretion, coupled with strict accountability mechanisms to prevent misuse and overreach.
• Improve Legal Safeguards and Oversight: Institutionalise mandatory preliminary inquiries and judicial oversight in sensitive cases to protect fundamental rights and prevent frivolous or politically motivated criminalisation.

Mains PYQ:

[UPSC 2013] Discuss Section 66A of IT Act, with reference to its alleged violation of Article 19 of the Constitution.

Linkage: This reflects the broader theme of how laws that define behaviour as potentially punishable (part of the criminalisation process) are scrutinised based on their impact on fundamental rights, a dynamic echoed in the article discussion of the Imran Pratapgarhi case where police action (governed by procedural law) affecting freedom of speech was reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now