The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a government school teacher, Faizan Ansari, for sharing an Urdu poem on his WhatsApp status, holding that a literary post without any intent to provoke hatred or violence cannot be treated as a criminal offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The case involved allegations that the teacher’s post promoted enmity and was inappropriate for someone in a teaching position. However, the court found no evidence of any intention to disturb public order or create hostility between communities.
“No intent to incite, no offence”: High Court
A bench led by Justice B.P. Sharma made it clear that criminal liability cannot be based on subjective interpretation alone.
The court observed, “The act of sharing a poetic recitation without any additional commentary or intent to incite cannot be construed as promoting enmity or public mischief.”
It further noted that the Urdu nazm shared by the Ansari, titled “Be-Haya”, dealt with human rights issues and social criticism, particularly focusing on the condition of women in society. The court said the poem did not mention any religion, community, or group.
Teacher posted Urdu nazm on WhatsApp status
According to the petition, Ansari had uploaded a video on July 22, 2025, on his WhatsApp status featuring a recitation of the poem written by Shoaib Kaini.
Soon after the post, police summoned him, seized his mobile phone, and registered an FIR alleging that the content could disturb communal harmony and was inappropriate for a teacher.
The teacher, however, argued that the post was purely literary and had no offensive or provocative intent.
Court: Poetry is artistic expression, not provocation
The High Court strongly rejected the idea that the poem could be treated as a criminal act simply because it was misunderstood or considered sensitive by some.
It observed, “The nazm, when read as a whole, is a satirical and thought-provoking literary work addressing human rights violations and the condition of women in a patriarchal society.”
The bench further stated that literature often uses strong imagery and criticism to highlight uncomfortable truths, which cannot be criminalised unless there is clear evidence of incitement.
No evidence of communal disharmony, says court
The court noted that the FIR was vague and did not show how the post actually led to any public disorder or hostility.
It said, “There is no material to show that the poem created enmity between groups or incited violence. The FIR is based on subjective assumptions rather than concrete evidence.”
FIR quashed, teacher’s rights protected
Finding that the case lacked essential ingredients of intent (mens rea), the High Court quashed the FIR and all related proceedings.
It also directed authorities to return the seized mobile phone and instructed the Superintendent of Police to provide protection to the teacher if needed.
The ruling reaffirmed that freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protects literary and artistic expression, and cannot be restricted unless there is clear proof of harm or incitement.
