The case, which sparked legal and literary discussions, also had moments of humor between Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Kapil Sibal.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on 3rd March, heard a case against Congress MP and poet Imran Pratapgarhi, who is facing police action for sharing a song on social media.
The case, which sparked legal and literary discussions, also had moments of humor between Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Kapil Sibal.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan questioned the police’s handling of the case and emphasized the importance of freedom of speech and expression.
Justice Oka stated,
“Some sensitivity has to be shown by the police before registering an FIR. They must at least read and understand (the article of the Constitution). Seventy-five years after the Constitution, the freedom of speech and expression has to be at least now understood by the police.”
The controversy began when Mr. Pratapgarhi’s social media handle shared a video featuring the song lyrics, “Aye khoon ke pyaaso baat suno,” which led to an FIR accusing him of inciting religious sentiments. After failing to get relief from the Gujarat High Court, he moved the Supreme Court.
Justice Oka further explained, “It is not against any religion. This poem indirectly says even if somebody indulges in violence, we will not indulge in violence. That is the message the poem gives.”
The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment on the matter.
Humorous Exchange Between Legal Experts
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Gujarat government, criticized the quality of the poem, questioning whether it could be attributed to renowned poets like Faiz Ahmed Faiz or Habib Jalib.
“The level of this can never be Faiz or Habib Jalib,” he remarked, describing the poem as “sadak chhap” (pedestrian).
Kapil Sibal, defending Pratapgarhi, humorously responded,
“My poems are also sadakchaap.”
However, Mr. Mehta disagreed and praised Mr. Sibal’s poetry, saying,
“No, his (Sibal’s) poems are really good!”
Justice Oka also joined the light-hearted discussion, saying,
“I told my brother (Justice Bhuyan) in a lighter vein, don’t call your poems sadakchaap, because you’ll have to write one poem for me at the end of May. So please don’t say that.”
Continuing his criticism of the poem shared by Pratapgarhi, Mr. Mehta remarked,
“I don’t admit it’s a poem. Why? Sher kabhi accha ya bura nahi hota; ya hota hai ya nahi hota.”
Justice Oka, amused by the discussion, asked, “Now you want to compete with him? In writing poems?” and encouraged Mr. Mehta to try writing poetry.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Questions Gujarat Police Over FIR Against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi
Mr. Sibal, in a friendly jibe, added, “He’s (Mehta) just not trying. He has a wealth of knowledge in this area.”
Justice Oka suggested that Mr. Mehta might not have enough time to write poetry, but Mr. Mehta responded with a witty remark,
“No, I have time. People say you have to fall in love to be a poet. I have never.”
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
