‘Judges Must Uphold Free Speech’: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Congress MP Over Poem

In a significant observation, the Supreme Court on Friday said that freedom of expression is an integral part of the society and upheld.

That there should be “reasonable restriction” on the right to speech, but this restriction “should not be unreasonable and fanciful to trample the rights of citizens”. The top court’s remarks came while quashing criminal proceedings initiated by the Gujarat Police against Congress MP ​Imran Pratapgarhi over a social media post with a poem ‘Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno’.

The court said that no offence is made out against Pratapgarhi, while also ruling that the police must first go through and understand the meaning of written or spoken words before lodging FIR in such cases.

The apex court had earlier reserved its judgment on the Congress MP’s petition seeking the quashing of the FIR, after the Gujarat High Court declined to quash the case in January this year.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations For Freedom Of Expression
A bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, while quashing the FIR, stressed that freedom of speech and expression is more important than the limits placed on it.

The court also said that the law against promoting enmity between religious groups (Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) cannot be invoked merely based on the standards of insecure people who feel offended by minor criticism.

“Police officers being citizens are bound to uphold the rights. When offence under Section 196 BNS, it cannot be judged as per the standards of weak minds or those who always perceive every criticism as an attack on them. This has to be judged on the point of courageous minds. We have held that when an offence is alleged on the basis of spoken or uttered words, section 173(3) of BNSS has to be resorted to in order to protect fundamental right,” the Supreme Court observed, Bar and Bench reported.

The top court said that the Constitutional courts should be at the forefront to uphold and protect the constitutional rights and “free speech is the most cherished right”.

“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,” the top court observed.

The bench further noted that even if a large number of people dislike views expressed by another individual, the right of a person to express the views “must be respected and protected”.

‘Judges Must Protect Freedom Of Speech Even If They Don’t Like What Was Said’: Supreme Court
Seemingly criticising the Gujarat High Court for declining to quash the FIR against Pratapgarhi, the Supreme Court said that the court are duty-bound to enforce the fundamental rights to the citizens.

“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,” the bench said.

“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,” it added.

Imran Pratapgarhi Case
The Congress MP was booked by the Gujarat Police based on a complaint filed by an advocate’s clerk who shared a video on social media with a poem ‘Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno’ playing in the background.

Gujarat Police had applied Sections 197 (statements harming national unity), 299 (deliberate acts to insult religious beliefs), and 302 (using words to hurt religious sentiments) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).