Top News

Bhopal: The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a first information report against a Muslim school teacher for sharing a poem written in Urdu on WhatsApp, noting that circulating a poem without an intent to incite hatred and commentary does not count as promoting enmity between groups.

Justice BP Sharma said the act of sharing the Urdu poem “Be-hay” by Shoaib Kaini could not be interpreted as public mischief and hate speech. The court observed that the poem highlighted human rights and violence against women in Pakistan and any other country, not targeting any religion or community.

“The act of the petitioner in sharing a poetic recitation, without any additional commentary or intent to incite, cannot be construed as promoting enmity or public mischief,” the court stated.

The case dates back to July 22, 2025, when the government school teacher Faizan Ansari shared a video recitation of the poem. He was later summoned by the police, who seized his mobile phone and registered a case against him, claiming that the content was inappropriate for a teacher, objectionable, and misogynistic.

Ansari approached the MP High Court seeking the quashing of the FIR, under Section 353(2) (Statements causing public mischief, inciting hatred) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. He claimed he was harassed and faced threats even after the police action.

The court examined the legal question of whether sharing a video of someone reciting poetry, by itself with no personal commentary, counts as a crime under Section 353 (2) BNS.

The bench reiterated that a speech-based offence cannot be imposed based on personal perception or speculations, but must be found on objective evidence of incitement.

“The Court finds that the FIR is conspicuously silent on any such intent attributable to the petitioner. The act alleged against the petitioner is confined to posting a video of a poetic recitation, without any additional commentary or exhortation and there is no material to suggest that the petitioner intended to incite hostility between communities or that the content was directed against any identifiable group,” the bench said.