The Crossbill Team
The Supreme Court on Friday (March 28) quashed the FIR filed by Gujarat Police against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi over an allegedly inflammatory Instagram post, emphasizing the judiciary's responsibility to uphold fundamental rights, including freedom of speech under Article 19(1).
A bench comprising Justices A S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan ruled that the post in question did not constitute an offence, thereby setting aside the Gujarat High Court's refusal to quash the criminal proceedings, The Indian Express reported.
The case against Pratapgarhi stemmed from a video he uploaded after attending a wedding in Jamnagar, which featured the poem "Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno". The prosecution had deemed the poem’s content objectionable and alleged that it incited unrest.
However, the Supreme Court underscored the essential role of free expression in a democratic society, stating that literature, poetry, satire, and other artistic expressions enrich human life and must be protected.
The court reiterated that judges are duty-bound to uphold constitutional rights, even if they personally disagree with the content of an individual's speech.
“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 ruling stated, adding that constitutional courts must actively defend fundamental rights, reported the newspaper.
The judgment also criticized the role of law enforcement in suppressing free speech.
“The police officers being citizens are bound to abide by the Constitution and they are bound to uphold the right,” the bench observed, highlighting that the preamble of the Constitution guarantees liberty of thought and expression.
Pratapgarhi had been booked by Gujarat Police on January 3 under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including provisions related to promoting enmity between groups, assertions prejudicial to national integration, and insulting religious beliefs.
The case was filed based on a complaint alleging that the poem incited opposition against the government and posed a threat to social harmony.
While the Gujarat High Court had earlier dismissed Pratapgarhi’s plea for quashing the FIR, citing the need for further investigation, the Supreme Court rejected this stance.
The high court had argued that as a Member of Parliament, Pratapgarhi was expected to exercise restraint and ensure social harmony. It also noted that he had failed to appear before investigators despite summons.
In its final ruling, the Supreme Court made it clear that the fundamental right to free speech cannot be curtailed based on subjective interpretations of its impact.
The verdict is being seen as a strong affirmation of constitutional protections for freedom of expression and a rebuke to the misuse of legal provisions to stifle dissent.
A bench comprising Justices A S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan ruled that the post in question did not constitute an offence, thereby setting aside the Gujarat High Court's refusal to quash the criminal proceedings, The Indian Express reported.
The case against Pratapgarhi stemmed from a video he uploaded after attending a wedding in Jamnagar, which featured the poem "Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno". The prosecution had deemed the poem’s content objectionable and alleged that it incited unrest.
However, the Supreme Court underscored the essential role of free expression in a democratic society, stating that literature, poetry, satire, and other artistic expressions enrich human life and must be protected.
The court reiterated that judges are duty-bound to uphold constitutional rights, even if they personally disagree with the content of an individual's speech.
“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 ruling stated, adding that constitutional courts must actively defend fundamental rights, reported the newspaper.
The judgment also criticized the role of law enforcement in suppressing free speech.
“The police officers being citizens are bound to abide by the Constitution and they are bound to uphold the right,” the bench observed, highlighting that the preamble of the Constitution guarantees liberty of thought and expression.
Pratapgarhi had been booked by Gujarat Police on January 3 under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including provisions related to promoting enmity between groups, assertions prejudicial to national integration, and insulting religious beliefs.
The case was filed based on a complaint alleging that the poem incited opposition against the government and posed a threat to social harmony.
While the Gujarat High Court had earlier dismissed Pratapgarhi’s plea for quashing the FIR, citing the need for further investigation, the Supreme Court rejected this stance.
The high court had argued that as a Member of Parliament, Pratapgarhi was expected to exercise restraint and ensure social harmony. It also noted that he had failed to appear before investigators despite summons.
In its final ruling, the Supreme Court made it clear that the fundamental right to free speech cannot be curtailed based on subjective interpretations of its impact.
The verdict is being seen as a strong affirmation of constitutional protections for freedom of expression and a rebuke to the misuse of legal provisions to stifle dissent.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment