New Delhi: Advocating the protection of freedom of speech and expression, the Supreme Court on Friday quashed an FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi for allegedly posting a clip of a poem alleged to be provocative.
The video carried the recitation of a poem uploaded on X by the Congress MP and it was alleged to carry words that pitted communities against one another aside from hurting religious sentiments.
The verdict said, “Free expression of thoughts by individuals or groups of individuals is an integral part of healthy and civilised society. Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
The court highlighted that in a healthy democracy, views, thoughts and opinions must be countered with a different view.
“Even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by others, the right of person to express views must be respected and protected,” it added.
The bench opined literature, including poetry, drama, films, satire and art, made the life of human beings more meaningful.
“Courts are duty-bound to protect and uphold fundamental rights of 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. It is the duty of the court to step in and to protect the fundamental rights,” it added.
Constitutional courts, the bench said, 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 bench said.
“Seventy-five years into our republic, we cannot be seen to be so shaky on our fundamentals that mere recital of a poem or for that matter, any form of art or entertainment, such as, stand-up comedy, can be alleged to lead to animosity or hatred amongst different communities,” it added.
The court went on, “Subscribing to such a view would stifle all legitimate expressions of view in the public domain which is so fundamental to a free society.”
In the 54-page verdict, a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan held no prima facie case against Pratapgarhi and said the FIR appeared to be a “very mechanical exercise” and a “clear abuse of the process of law”.
The top court said the police machinery was part of the state and its officers must abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals.
“Moreover, the police officers being citizens, are bound to abide by the Constitution. They are bound to honour and uphold freedom of speech and expression conferred on all citizens,” it said.
The Congress MP was booked by the Gujarat police in the case on January 3.
Pratapgarhi, national chairman of the Congress’ minority cell, was booked for offences, including Section 196 (promoting enmity between different groups on the basis of religion, race, etc) and 197 (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The 46-second video clip, uploaded by Pratapgarhi on X, showed him being showered with flower petals as he walks waving his hands and a song playing in the background which the FIR alleged had provocative words, detrimental to national unity and hurt religious feelings.
The top court said the effect of spoken or written words couldn’t be judged on the basis of standards of the people who always had a sense of insecurity or those who perceived criticism as a threat to their power or position.
The verdict rejected the proposition that a mere recital of a poem, stand-up comedy or any form of art or entertainment led to animosity or hatred among different communities.
The bench underlined the court’s duty in protecting the fundamental rights of citizens and said it shouldn’t be seen to “regulate or stifle the freedom of speech and expression”.
For the offence under Section 196 of the BNS, the court said, spoken or written words would have to be considered based on standards of a reasonable strong-minded firm and courageous individual and not on standards of people with weak and oscillating minds.
