The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a sharp rebuke to the Gujarat police, emphasizing that law enforcement must understand and value the cherished right to free speech and expression, particularly 75 years into India’s independence.
A bench of justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan criticised the police for registering a first information report (FIR) against Congress Rajya Sabha parliamentarian Imran Pratapgarhi for posting a poem on social media, as it underlined the importance of artistic freedom and sensitivity in matters of creative expression.
“Seventy-five years into our independence, the freedom of speech and expression has to be understood by the police now,” asserted the bench, highlighting the constitutional significance of the issue.
Also read | Supreme Court raps Ranveer Allahbadia, says humour cannot be ‘free for all’
Hearing Pratapgarhi’s petition for the quashing of the FIR against him, the court expressed dismay over the criminal case, observing that law enforcement had shown a “lack of sensitivity” and “no respect for creativity”.
The poem in question, titled “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno,” (Listen, oh bloodthirsty ones) was featured in the background of a mass marriage video and was post by Pratapgarhi on the social media platform, X. He created the post after attending the mass marriage in Jamnagar.
The FIR, filed at a Jamnagar police station on January 3, invoked provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita related to promoting enmity and disturbing social harmony. The Gujarat high court, on January 17, refused to quash the FIR, justifying the police action on the grounds that the poem could incite unrest.
The Supreme Court, however, took a firm stance against the high court’s reasoning. Reading aloud the poem’s translation, the bench on Monday stated: “Those who are bloodthirsty, listen to us. Even if the fight for justice is met with injustice, we will meet that injustice with love…This is what the translation of this poem is…What else can it be but promoting non-violence?”
Also read | Supreme Court cracks whip on waste management in NCR
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Gujarat police, suggested that the way people interpreted the poem might be different. The bench, however, retorted: “This is the problem. Now nobody has any respect for creativity.”
It further emphasised the need to uphold artistic freedom, noting, “If you read it plainly, it says that even if you suffer injustice, you suffer it with love.”
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Pratapgarhi, voiced serious concerns over the Gujarat high court’s decision to uphold the FIR. “I am more worried about the high court judge and the way the police action was upheld,” Sibal remarked.
Agreeing with him, the bench expressed its disappointment that the case had not been resolved at the high court level. “There’s no place for expressing yourself if police were to act in this fashion. Some sensitivity has to be there,” said the bench, stressing that the police must grasp the essence of a poem and appreciate its message rather than resort to criminal prosecution.
Mehta, on his part, submitted that the court could put a quietus to the matter by quashing the FIR.
But the bench said: “Our worry is some efforts should have been made to understand what’s the essence of the poem. Ultimately, it’s a poem…we will have to say something in our final judgment,” it added.
The high court previously ruled that “the tenor of the poem certainly indicates something about the throne” and that responses to the post suggested it could create social unrest. It further held that as a parliamentarian, Pratapgarhi should have exercised greater caution, especially given his alleged failure to cooperate with the investigation.
The Supreme Court, however, appeared unconvinced by the high court’s reasoning, reaffirming its commitment to safeguarding free speech. “When it comes to freedom of speech and expression, there cannot be any agenda. We have to uphold it,” the bench observed.
Reserving its judgment, the court indicated that it would have more to say on the matter in its final ruling, further intensifying scrutiny on the Gujarat police’s handling of the case.
The bench had earlier granted interim relief to Pratapgarhi by staying all further steps pursuant to the FIR.
