Though the observations are made in the case related to the Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi while quashing the FIR registered against him by Gujarat Police, what was said applicable also to in several other cases, the recent ones being from Maharashtra involving a stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, who had made a satire against Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde. After the performance of the artist, the venue of performance was vandalized, and an FIR has been registered against Kamra.

An FIR against Imran Pratapgarhi was registered on January 3, 2025 at Jamnagar police station for posting a poem on social media of the renowned poets Faiz Ahmed Faiz and Habib Jalib, who were prominent Urdu poets and left-wing political activists known for their revolutionary poetry and opposition to authoritarianism, one of the poems being “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno”. The allegation was that the poems incited unrest and disturbed social harmony.

On January 17, the Gujarat High Court had refused to quash the FIR noting that the poem’s content had references to “the throne” and that responses to the post suggested a potential disturbance in social harmony. Pratapgrhi challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court, which granted interim relief to him directing that no further steps be taken concerning the FIR until further orders.

Supreme Court questioned the Police’s decision to register the FIR, and criticized the lack of sensitivity shown by them on a poem that actually conveyed a message of non-violence. Supreme Court Justice Abhay Oka has said that police must understand the freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court has reserved the judgment on March 3, which came out today March 28.

While quashing the FIR against Pratapgarhi, the bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, observed that no offence was made out. The bench then reminded the police, the judges, and the ruling establishments that they are duty bound to uphold the rights of persons expressing even unpopular opinions.

“Free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or groups of individuals is an integral part of a healthy civilized society,” the bench observed, adding “Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.”

The bench said, “In a healthy democracy, the views of thoughts expressed by an individual or group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of views. … 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.”

The Supreme Court bench emphasized, “Literature, including poetry, dramas, films, satire, and art make the life of human beings more meaningful.”

Since the High Court of Gujarat had refused to quash the FIR, the Supreme Court has specifically made some observations regarding courts and judges.

“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), the bench observed adding, “We judges are also under an obligation to uphold the Constitution and the respective ideals. … It is the bounden duty of the court to ensure that the Constitution and ideals of the Constitution are not trampled upon.”

To make things clearer, the bench also made some significant observations for police, “The police officer must abide by the Constitution and respect 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. … The police officers … are bound to abide by the constitution and they are bound to uphold the right.”

The observation is very significant and it applies to the ruling establishments, since they have been misusing police and investigating agencies to throttle dissent and criticism. The bench has also made specific observation, “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 of position.”

Restrictions on speech must be “reasonable, not fanciful”, the Supreme Court said, stressing that Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which allows the government to impose reasonable restrictions, cannot overshadow the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1).

The Bench also observed that for the offence under section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, the spoken or written words will have to be considered based on standards of a reasonable strong-minded firm and courageous individual, and not on the standards of people with weak and oscillating minds. (IPA Service)