New Delhi: The Supreme Court on March 28 (today) quashed a first information report against Congress Member of Parliament Imran Prataphgarhi while reminding lower courts and the police of their duty to protect freedom of speech and expression. A bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the verdict reported LiveLaw. The bench observed that no offence was made out.
The Supreme Court was hearing Prataphgarhi’s petition challenging an FIR filed by the Gujarat police over his Instagram post featuring a video clip with the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno”. The poem in question, titled “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” (Listen, oh bloodthirsty ones), was featured in the background of a mass marriage video and was posted by Pratapgarhi on the social media platform X. Pratapgarhi created the post after attending the mass marriage in Jamnagar. Allowing Pratapgarhi’s appeal against the high court order, the Supreme Court, however, took a firm stance against the high court’s reasoning.
“Literate and arts make life more meaningful; freedom of expression is necessary for a dignified life. Free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or groups of individuals is an integral part of a healthy civilized society. Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In a healthy democracy, the views of thoughts expressed by an individual or group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of view.
“Even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of person to express the views must be respected and protected. Literature including poetry, dramas, films, satire, and art make the life of human beings more meaningful.”
The court also reportedly criticised the Gujarat high court for not quashing the FIR against Pratapgarhi. On January 17, 2025, the Gujarat high court had refused to quash the FIR saying that the poem had references to “the throne” and that responses to the post suggested a potential disturbance in social harmony, the report said.
The court said, that the MP should have known the repercussions of such a post and should have refrained from promoting public disharmony. It observed that further investigation was necessary Pratapgarhi then challenged the high court’s decision before the Supreme Court, which provided interim relief to him on January 25.
“The Courts are duty bound to uphold and enforce the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Sometimes we the judges may not like the spoken or written words, but still, it is our duty to uphold the fundamental rights under Article 19(1). We judges are also under an obligation to uphold the Constitution and the respective ideals. It is the duty of the court to step in and to protect the fundamental rights. Particularly, the Constitutional courts must be at the forefront to zealously protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. It is the bounden duty of the court to ensure that the Constitution and ideals of the Constitution are not trampled upon.
The endeavour of the Court should be to always protect and promote the fundamental rights including the freedom of speech and expression which is the most important right citizens can have in all liberal constitutional democracy,” the court said.
About the police officers’ haste in filing an FIR, the court said, “The police officer must abide by the Constitution and respect the ideals. The philosophy of the constitutional ideals can be found in the Constitution itself. In the preamble, it is laid down that the people of India solemnly decided to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic and to secure for all its citizens liberty of thought and expression. Therefore, liberty of thought and expression is one of the ideals of our constitution. The police officers being citizens are bound to abide by the constitution and they are bound to uphold the right.”
The FIR against the Congress MP was filed under Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, and 57 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Section 196 pertains to promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.
For the offence under Section 196 of the BNS, the court said, “The effect of spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of standards of the people who always have the sense of insecurity or those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position.
Gujarat high court had refused to quash FIR
Justice Sandeep Mehta of the Gujarat HC had refused to quash the FIR. The Supreme Court on Friday quashed the first information report (FIR) against Congress Rajya Sabha parliamentarian Imran Pratapgarhi, underlining the significance of free speech and reproaching the Gujarat police authorities for seeking to criminally prosecute a person for ostensibly delivering a message of peace through a poem that Pratapgarhi posted on social media. “No offence was attracted at all,” held a bench of justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, while reading out the operative part of the judgment.
The bench emphasised that the free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or groups is an integral part of a healthy, civilized society.
“Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In a healthy democracy, the views of thoughts expressed by an individual or group must be countered by expressing another point of view,” the court observed.
This case against Pratapgarhi stems from the FIR filed in a Jamnagar police station on January 3, invoking various provisions under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) relating to promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, and doing acts prejudicial to harmony.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court reinforced that “even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of the person to express the views must be respected and protected. Literature, including poetry, dramas, films, satire, and art, makes human life more meaningful.”
“The courts are duty-bound to uphold and enforce the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Sometimes we, the judges, may not like spoken or written words, but still, it is our duty to uphold the fundamental rights under Article 19(1). We judges are also under an obligation to uphold the Constitution and its respective ideals,” the bench noted.
The judgment further stressed that it is the duty of the courts, particularly constitutional courts, to zealously protect fundamental rights.
“It is the bounden duty of the court to ensure that the Constitution and ideals of the Constitution are not trampled upon. Constitutional courts must be at the forefront to protect the fundamental rights of individuals, including free speech, which is one of the most cherished fundamental rights for a healthy and vibrant democracy”, it read.
The court observed that the “endeavour of the judiciary should always be to protect and promote fundamental rights, including the freedom of speech and expression, which is the most important right citizens can have in any liberal constitutional democracy.”
The ruling also delivered a stern message to law enforcement, asserting that “police officers must abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals. The philosophy of constitutional ideals can be found in the Constitution itself.”
The entire judgement may be read here:
Related:
Censorship vs. free speech: The Allahbadia controversy
Targeting Press Freedom: The unexplained censorship of Vikatan and the erosion of free speech
‘Free speech under threat’: again, Jamia student moves court against ‘highhanded’ suspension