New Delhi: Seventy-five years into India’s independence, the mere recital of a poem or a stand-up comedy act cannot to be construed as a criminal offence that can shake the republic, the Supreme Court asserted on Friday as it quashed a first information report (FIR) against Congress parliamentarian Imran Pratapgarhi for posting a poem on social media.
“75 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. Subscribing to such a view would stifle all legitimate expressions of view in the public domain which is so fundamental to a free society,” said a bench of justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
The judgment reaffirmed that the “free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or groups of individuals is an integral part of a healthy, civilised society”, stating that the right to express thoughts, even if they are unpopular or challenge dominant narratives, must be “protected, respected, and cherished”.
The court warned against the suppression of artistic expression, noting that judges must uphold fundamental rights on speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), even if they personally disagree with the spoken or written word.
“Acceptance of the freedom to express a view which may not accord with the mainstream is a cardinal value. A society wedded to the rule of law cannot trample upon the rights of those who assert views which may be regarded as unpopular or contrary to the views shared by the majority,” it emphasised.
The judgment, which comes at a time when increasing instances of legal action against artists, comedians, and writers have raised concerns about freedom of expression, underlined that whether speech incites animosity or hatred must be based on “the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous individuals,” not those “with weak and oscillating minds” or those “who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position.”
The court observed that democracy does not mean uniformity of thought. “In a healthy democracy, the views, opinions or thoughts expressed by an individual or group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of view,” said the bench, adding that it is impossible to lead a life with dignity without freedom of expression of thoughts and views.
The court noted that literature, poetry, drama, satire, and art are essential components of a democratic society that make the life of human beings more meaningful, and that a citizen’s right to express views, even if they are unpopular or disliked by many, must be “respected and protected”.
The case against Pratapgarhi stems from the FIR filed in a Jamnagar police station on January 3, invoking various provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc, and doing acts prejudicial to harmony.
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. He created the post after attending the mass marriage in Jamnagar on December 29, 2024.
The Gujarat high court, on January 17, refused to quash the FIR, justifying the police action on the grounds that the poem could incite unrest. It also pointed to Pratapgarhi’s alleged non-cooperation with the probe and the potential impact of the poem’s references.
Allowing Pratapgarhi’s appeal against the high court order, the Supreme Court, however, took a strong stance against the manner in which the FIR was registered against Pratapgarhi, calling it “a very mechanical exercise” and a “clear abuse of the process of law”. The ruling went further, stating that the registration of the case “virtually borders on perversity” and should have been nipped in the bud by the high court.
The ruling also made critical observations about the role of law enforcement in cases involving free speech. It highlighted that under Section 196 of BNS, determining whether speech incites animosity or hatred.
The judgment clarified that police officers must abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals. The court insisted that the fundamental right to free speech cannot be stifled by invoking criminal charges without a prima facie case. “If the police or executive fail to honour and protect the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), it is the duty of the Courts to step in and protect them,” it added.
“Courts, 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 courts to ensure that the Constitution and the ideals of the Constitution are not trampled upon. Endeavour of the courts should always be to protect and promote the fundamental rights, including the freedom of speech and expression, which is one of the most cherished rights a citizen can have in a liberal constitutional democracy,” noted the bench.