"Supreme Court Quashes Gujarat FIR Against Congress MP, Emphasizes Judges' Duty to Uphold Freedom of Speech, Even if Unfavorable"

The Supreme Court on Friday (March 28) quashed an FIR filed by the Gujarat Police against Congress Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi. The FIR was based on his Instagram post that featured a video clip accompanied by the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno.” A bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, while granting relief to Pratapgarhi, concluded that the allegations did not constitute any offence. The judgment emphasized the significance of safeguarding freedom of speech and expression, highlighting that the Courts and Police have a responsibility to protect the rights of individuals who voice unpopular opinions. Justice Oka read out the relevant excerpts from the judgment as follows : Literate and arts make life more meaningful; freedom of expression is necessary for a dignified life "Free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or groups of individuals is an integral part of a healthy civilized society. Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In a healthy democracy, the views of thoughts expressed by an individual or group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of view. Even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of person to express the views must be respected and protected. Literature including poetry, dramas, films, satire, and art make the life of human beings more meaningful." Courts must uphold rights even if they don't like what was expressed Seemingly criticising the Gujarat High Court for refusing to quash the FIR, the Supreme Court observed : "The Courts are duty bound to uphold and enforce the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Sometimes we the judges may not like the spoken or written words, but still, it is our duty to uphold the fundamental rights under Article 19(1). We judges are also under an obligation to uphold the Constitution and the respective ideals. It is the duty of the court to step in and to protect the fundamental rights. 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 court to ensure that the Constitution and ideals of the Constitution are not trampled upon." The endeavour of the Court should be to always protect and promote the fundamental rights including the freedom of speech and expression which is the most important right citizens can have in all liberal constitutional democracy." Duty of police officers The judgment also had pertinent observations for the police force as well, who were overzealous in lodging the FIR. "The police officer must abide by the Constitution and respect the ideals. The philosophy of the constitutional ideals can be found in the Constitution itself. In the preamble, it is laid down that the people of India solemnly decided to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic and to secure for all its citizens liberty of thought and expression. Therefore. Liberty of thought and expression is one of the ideals of our constitution The police officers being citizens are bound to abide by the constitution and they are bound to uphold the right." The Court observed that for the offence under Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the spoken or written words will have to be considered based on standards of a reasonable strong-minded firm and courageous individual and not based on standards of people with weak and oscillating minds. "The effect of spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of standards of the people who always have the sense of insecurity or those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position," the Court observed. Background: An FIR was filed in Jamnagar under Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, and 57 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Section 196: Involves promoting enmity between different groups based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc. High Court's Decision: On January 17, 2025, the Gujarat High Court refused to cancel the FIR. The court noted that the poem referred to "the throne" and that some responses to the post suggested it might disturb social harmony. The court said that as an MP, Pratapgarhi should have known the possible impact of such posts. The High Court stated that further investigation was needed as Pratapgarhi did not cooperate with the police and ignored notices. Supreme Court's Involvement: Pratapgarhi challenged the High Court's decision in the Supreme Court. On January 25, the Supreme Court granted interim relief, directing that no further action be taken on the FIR until further orders. During hearings, the Supreme Court questioned why the Gujarat Police registered the FIR. Justice Oka pointed out that the poem conveyed a message of non-violence and stressed that police must understand freedom of speech under Article 19 of the Constitution. State's Argument: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Gujarat, argued that the public might have interpreted the poem differently. He also claimed that Pratapgarhi was responsible for his social media team's actions. Defense Argument: Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Pratapgarhi, argued that the Supreme Court should criticize the High Court's approach to this case. Current Status: The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on March 3.