The Supreme Court of India on Monday made a strong statement about the importance of freedom of speech and expression, emphasizing that police must fully understand these fundamental rights at least after 75 years of the Constitution’s existence. The remark came during a hearing on a petition filed by Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi, who sought to quash an FIR registered against him over a poem he had posted on social media.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the poem in question, after translation, appeared to advocate non-violence rather than incite any disturbance. The judges expressed concern over the growing disregard for artistic and creative expression, highlighting that authorities must show sensitivity while assessing such cases. The court noted that the poem did not reference any religion or contain anti-national elements, countering the arguments of the Gujarat police, who had invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita related to threats to national integration and religious harmony.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Gujarat government, argued that social media is a powerful tool that must be used responsibly. The court, while acknowledging this concern, reiterated that freedom of speech cannot be compromised and that the police must develop a nuanced understanding of such cases rather than reacting with excessive action.
Pratapgarhi, a poet and politician, was booked following a complaint that his poem, “Ae Khoon Ke Pyase, Baat Suno…”—which was featured in a social media post—could incite unrest. The Gujarat High Court had earlier refused to quash the FIR, stating that the social media post had the potential to disrupt social harmony. The high court also held that public figures like MPs should be more mindful of the impact of their words.
The Supreme Court, however, took a broader view, emphasizing the importance of upholding free speech. Justice Oka remarked that there should be efforts to understand the meaning of creative works rather than jumping to conclusions.
The hearing also included lighter moments, with Solicitor General Mehta referencing legendary Urdu poets Faiz Ahmad Faiz and Habib Jalib to argue about the literary quality of the poem in question. The exchange between Mehta and Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who represented Pratapgarh, turned humorous when Sibal jokingly referred to his own poetry, prompting Mehta to acknowledge its quality.
As the court reserved its verdict, the case raised significant questions about the boundaries of free speech, the role of law enforcement in handling creative expression, and the need for a balanced approach in dealing with social media content. The outcome will be closely watched, as it could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future.
