Today, On 3rd March, The Supreme Court criticized Gujarat Police for registering an FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi over a social media post featuring a poem. The court stressed the significance of free speech, stating that the poem promotes non-violence and does not target any religion. It suggested that the case may have political motives and granted interim protection to Pratapgarhi.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court criticized the Gujarat Police for filing an FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi over his social media post featuring the poem “ae khoon ke pyase baat suno.” The court questioned the reasoning behind the case and suggested it would likely dismiss the proceedings.
It reminded the authorities that the Constitution upheld freedom of speech for 75 years, stating that the police should understand the concept of freedom of speech and expression by now.
The Bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made the remark while reserving its verdict on Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi’s plea to quash a case filed against him over a poem shared on social media.
Justice Oka observed,
“This is the problem, now nobody has any respect for creativity. If you read it plainly, it says that even if you suffer injustice, suffer it with love; even if people die, we will accept it,”
The Supreme Court postponed its decision on a petition by Congress Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi. He is asking to dismiss an FIR filed by the Gujarat Police regarding a poem he shared on social media.
Also Read: Supreme Court Questions Gujarat Police Over FIR Against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi
After reviewing the translation of the poem, the Court stated that the social media post promoted non-violence and emphasized that the police should exercise sensitivity in such matters. The Court further noted that the post was unrelated to religion or any anti-national activities.
When Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the State of Gujarat, argued that “social media is a dangerous tool and that individuals must act responsibly”
The Court responded,
“Seventy-five years after the Constitution’s inception, freedom of speech and expression must at least now be understood by the police.”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who represented Pratapgarhi, added,
“And by the court!”
Mehta referred to the post shared by Pratapgarhi as “sadakchaap,” stating,
“It’s not a poem. It’s a sadakchaap (insignificant/poor). A poem means a poem.”
In response, Sibal, hinting at his own experience with poetry, remarked,
“My poems are also sadakchaap.”
Mehta quickly countered, saying,
“No, his (Sibal’s) poems are really good!”
Sibal was referencing the Gujarat High Court’s ruling that dismissed the Congress MP’s petition, but Mehta objected to this remark.
“My lords may kindly not travel that path… I have no other agenda in this matter.”
Justice Oka then asserted the importance of upholding free speech, the judge remarked,
“When it comes to freedom of speech and expression, there can’t be an agenda. We have to uphold that. Our concern is that efforts must at least be made to understand the meaning of the poem. That’s our concern,”
Pratapgarhi charged on January 3, 2024, under sections related to promoting enmity and undermining national integration after he posted a video from a mass marriage event in Jamnagar, Gujarat.
In the video, he was showered with flower petals while the poem played in the background, which the complainant deemed “provocative.”
However, in previous hearings, the Supreme Court dismissed these concerns, asserting that the poem does not target any religion and promotes a message of non-violence. The bench also criticized the Gujarat High Court’s decision to reject Pratapgarhi’s plea to quash the FIR.
The court told the state’s counsel,
“Apply your mind to the poem. Ultimately, creativity is also important,”
Pratapgarhi previously argued that the FIR was politically motivated and intended to harass him. The Supreme Court had granted him interim protection in January.
It was alleged that the Congress MP had shared a video on social media featuring the poem “ae khoon ke pyase baat suno…” playing in the background.
Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India and protected under various legal provisions.
However, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions.
1. Constitutional Provisions
- Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution: Grants all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression, allowing individuals to express their opinions freely through speech, writing, or any other form of communication.
- Article 19(2): Imposes reasonable restrictions on free speech in the interests of:
- Sovereignty and integrity of India
- Security of the state
- Friendly relations with foreign states
- Public order
- Decency or morality
- Contempt of court
- Defamation
- Incitement to an offense
2. Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
- Section 124A (Sedition): Criminalizes speech or expression that incites hatred or violence against the government.
- Section 153A & 153B: Prohibits speech that promotes enmity between different groups or affects national integration.
- Section 295A: Penalizes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
- Section 499 & 500 (Defamation): Protects individuals from defamatory speech and provides for legal action.
Case Title: Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat
SLP(Crl) No. 1015/2025 Diary No. 3511 / 2025
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
