New Delhi [India], March 28 (HBTV): Stressing the importance of protecting freedom of speech and expression, the Supreme Court on Friday quashed an FIR registered against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi by Gujarat Police over a social media post featuring the poem Ae Khoon Ke Pyase Baat Suno...

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan allowed the petition filed by Pratapgarhi against the FIR, observing that no offence was committed.

The apex court stated that free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or groups is an integral part of a healthy, civilised society. Without freedom of expression, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, the bench noted.

‘In a healthy democracy, the views and thoughts expressed by an individual or group must be countered by expressing another point of view. Even if a large number of people dislike certain views, the right of an individual to express them must be respected and protected. Literature, including poetry, dramas, films, satire, and art, makes human life more meaningful,’ the court observed in its verdict.

The judgment further stated that courts must uphold fundamental rights even if they disagree with what is expressed.

‘The courts are duty-bound to uphold and enforce the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Sometimes, judges may not like spoken or written words, but it remains our duty to uphold the fundamental rights under Article 19(1). Judges are also obligated to uphold the Constitution and its ideals,’ the bench added.

The court emphasised that it is its duty to step in and protect fundamental rights, particularly the constitutional courts, which must be at the forefront in zealously safeguarding the rights of citizens.

‘It is the bounden duty of the court to ensure that the Constitution and its ideals are not trampled upon,’ it stated.

The verdict further underscored that the court’s endeavour must always be to protect and promote fundamental rights, including freedom of speech and expression, which is the most important right citizens have in all liberal constitutional democracies.

Quashing the FIR, the apex court held that police officers, as citizens, are bound to abide by the Constitution and uphold fundamental rights. It added that law enforcement must thoroughly understand the meaning of written or spoken words before lodging FIRs in such cases.

The court also ruled that the offence of promoting enmity between religious groups under Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) cannot be invoked based on the sensitivities of individuals who take offence at every slight criticism.

‘The Preamble of the Constitution declares that the people of India have solemnly resolved to constitute the nation into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic and secure for all its citizens liberty of thought. Therefore, liberty of thought and expression is one of the ideals of our Constitution,’ the verdict stated.

It further noted that ‘the effect of spoken or written words cannot be judged based on the standards of those who always feel insecure or perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position.’

Pratapgarhi had been facing charges of promoting communal disharmony by posting a video clip on his social media handle featuring the poem Ae Khoon Ke Pyase Baat Suno...

The apex court had earlier granted him protection from arrest after Gujarat Police registered an FIR over the post.

On January 3, Jamnagar Police booked Pratapgarhi, the national chairman of Congress’ minority cell, under multiple charges, including promoting enmity between different groups on the basis of religion and race, making statements prejudicial to national integration, insulting religious groups or their beliefs, and abetting the commission of an offence by the public or by a group of more than ten people.

The FIR alleged that Pratapgarhi posted a 46-second video clip on December 29 on X with the poem Ae Khoon Ke Pyase Baat Suno... playing in the background. A Jamnagar resident had filed the complaint, alleging that the song was ‘provocative, detrimental to national integrity, and hurt religious sentiments.’

Pratapgarhi subsequently moved the High Court seeking to quash the FIR, arguing that the poem ‘spreads a message of love.’ However, on January 17, 2025, the High Court refused to quash the FIR, citing the need for further investigation and stating that he had not cooperated with the probe.

Before the High Court, Pratapgarhi maintained that ‘reading of the song-poem conveys a message of love and non-violence.’ (ANI)