The judges also reiterated that police officers must uphold citizens’ rights and should not misuse laws to suppress free speech. They noted that cases under Section 196 BNS should not be decided based on “weak minds” who feel offended by every criticism.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday (28th March) criticized the Gujarat Police for filing a First Information Report (FIR) against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi over a poem he had posted on social media. The Court ruled in his favor, stating that freedom of speech and expression is more important than the restrictions that can be imposed on it under the law.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Questions Gujarat Police Over FIR Against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi
The Bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan quashed the FIR and ruled that the offence of promoting enmity between religious groups under Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) cannot be applied based on the views of people who take offense at every minor criticism.
The Supreme Court strongly emphasized the importance of free speech and the duty of police officers to protect fundamental rights.
The Court stated “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 Bench further stressed that constitutional courts must actively defend free speech, which is one of the most valued rights in a democracy.
“Constitutional courts should be at the forefront to protect the constitutional rights and free speech is most cherished right.”
The judges also reiterated that police officers must uphold citizens’ rights and should not misuse laws to suppress free speech. They noted that cases under Section 196 BNS should not be decided based on “weak minds” who feel offended by every criticism.
“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 rights.”
The Supreme Court emphasized that restrictions on speech must be “reasonable, not fanciful,” asserting that Article 19(2) of the Constitution cannot override the fundamental freedoms enshrined in Article 19(1).
“Freedom of expression is essential for a dignified life, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In a thriving democracy, differing opinions should be met with counter-speech, not suppression,” the Court stated. “Literature, poetry, drama, films, stand-up comedy, satire, and art add meaning to life.”
These observations come amid a major political controversy surrounding stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, whose remarks about Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde went viral. Following the uproar, FIRs were filed against Kamra, and the Mumbai Khar venue where he performed was vandalized.
Background
Imran Pratapgarhi had approached the Supreme Court after the Gujarat High Court refused to quash the FIR against him.
The case was filed by Gujarat Police based on a complaint from an advocate’s clerk, who claimed that Pratapgarhi had shared a video on social media featuring a poem titled “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno…” playing in the background.
Gujarat Police charged Pratapgarhi under Sections 197 (imputations prejudicial to national integration), 299 (deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings), and 302 (uttering words to wound religious sentiments) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
During the hearings, the Supreme Court questioned the Gujarat Police’s actions and noted that the poem did not contain any anti-religious or anti-national content. The Court also reminded the police of their duty to understand the meaning of freedom of speech and expression.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pratapgarhi, striking down the FIR and reinforcing the principle that free speech should not be curtailed based on unreasonable interpretations of the law.
Case Title – Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat| Crl.A. No. 1545/2025
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
