Stressing on the importance of protecting the freedom of thought, views and speech and stating that there could be no “fanciful and oppressive” restriction to “trample” the free speech, the Supreme Court on Thursday quashed the criminal proceedings initiated by Gujarat police against Congress Rajya Sabha member Imran Pratapgarhi over a social media post with a poem ‘Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno’ playing in the background.

Holding that no offence is made out against Congress Rajya Sabha member Imran Pratapgarhi, a bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in a judgment said: “Free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or group of individuals is an integral part of a healthy civilised society. Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.”

Advertisement

In a censure of the Gujarat police for the way it acted in the case, the top court said: “When an offence punishable under Section 196 of BNS is alleged, the effect of the spoken or written words will have to be considered based on standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous individuals and not based on the standards of people with weak and oscillating minds.”

It further said: “The police officers must abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals…” and “… the police officers being citizens, are bound to abide by the Constitution. They are bound to honour and uphold freedom of speech and expression conferred on all citizens.”

Section 196 of BNS provides for punishment for promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc , and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.

Holding that no offence is made out against Congress Rajya Sabha member Imran Pratapgarhi , the top court set aside the 17 January 2025 order of the Gujarat High Court refusing to quash the FIR. The top court also set aside the FIR and the further proceedings based on it.

Taking a dim view of the way police acted in the matter, Justice Oka, pronouncing the judgment, said: “75 years into our republic, we cannot be seen to be so shaky on our fundamentals that mere recital of a poem or for that matter, any form of art or entertainment, such as, stand-up comedy, can be alleged to lead to animosity or hatred amongst different communities. Subscribing to such a view would stifle all legitimate expressions of view in the public domain which is so fundamental to a free society.”

Noting that the High Court did not give any relief to the appellant Imran Pratapgarhi while holding that the investigation was at a nascent stage, the top court said: “There is no absolute rule that when the investigation is at a nascent stage, the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction to quash an offence by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the CrPC equivalent to Section 528 of the BNSS.”

The judgment said: “When the High Court, in the given case, finds that no offence was made out on the face of it, to prevent abuse of the process of law, it can always interfere even though the investigation is at the nascent stage. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case as well as the nature of the offence. There is no such blanket rule putting an embargo on the powers of the High Court to quash FIR only on the ground that the investigation was at a nascent stage.”

Stating that “By no stretch of imagination, does it (Poem) promote enmity between different groups”, the court said: “We fail to understand how the statements therein are detrimental to national unity and how the statements will affect national unity”.

The judgment further said: “To say the least, it is ridiculous to say that the act of the appellant is intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. The poem only tells the rulers what the reaction will be if the fight for rights is met with injustice.”

The judgment said that “The effect of the spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of the standards of people who always have a sense of insecurity or of those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position.”

Exhorting the courts to be on the guard against such tendencies, the top court said that the “Courts, 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 Courts to ensure that the Constitution and the ideals of the Constitution are not trampled upon. Endeavour of the courts should always be to protect and promote the fundamental rights, including the freedom of speech and expression, which is one of the most cherished rights a citizen can have in a liberal constitutional democracy.”

Stating that the courts must not be seen to “regulate or stifle the freedom of speech and expression”, the judgment said: “As a matter of fact, the Courts must remain ever vigilant to thwart any attempt to undermine the Constitution and the constitutional values, including the freedom of speech and expression.”

On a complaint by a Jamnagar resident, on 3 January 2025, Imran Pratapgarhi – the national chairman of the Congress’ minority cell – was booked by Jamnagar police for promoting enmity between different groups on the basis of religion, race, statements prejudicial to national integration, insulting religious group or their beliefs, abetting the commission of an offense by the public or by a group of more than ten people, among other charges.

The FIR alleged that Imran Pratapgarhi was booked after he posted the 46-second video clip on 29 December on the X social media platform with a poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno…” running in the background.

Imran Pratapgarhi moved the High Court for quashing the FIR, saying that the poem, based on which the FIR was filed, “is a poem spreading a message of love.” However, the High Court on 17 January 2025, refused to quash the FIR, saying there was need for further investigation and that Mr Pratapgarhi had not cooperated with the investigation process.