Mere recital of poem can't lead to hatred, says SC; quashes Gujarat Police FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi

Holding that mere recital of poetry can’t lead to animosity amongst different communities; the Supreme Court on Friday emphasised the need to protect free speech as it quashed an FIR registered by the Gujarat Police against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi for allegedly posting a clip of a provocative poem on a social media platform.

“75 years into our republic, we cannot be seen to be so shaky on our fundamentals that the 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,” a Bench led by Justice AS Oka said.

“Literature including poetry, dramas, films, stage shows including stand-up comedy, satire and art, make the lives of human beings more meaningful. The courts are duty-bound to uphold and enforce fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India,” said the Bench which also included Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

Writing the verdict for the Bench, Justice Oka said, “Free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or groups 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.

“In a healthy democracy, the views, opinions or 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 the person to express the views must be respected and protected,” Justice Oka wrote.

The top court said, “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.

“The courts must not be seen to regulate or stifle the freedom of speech and expression. 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,” added.

The Bench said, “Sometimes, we, the Judges, may not like spoken or written words. But, still, it is our duty to uphold the fundamental right under Article 19 (1)(a). We Judges are under an obligation to uphold the Constitution and respect its ideals. If the police or executive fail to honour and protect the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution, it is the duty of the Courts to step in and protect the fundamental rights. There is no other institution which can uphold the fundamental rights of the citizens.”

Article 19(2) which speaks of reasonable restrictions must remain reasonable and can't be fanciful or oppressive so as to overshadow Article 19(1), it said.

The top court said, “When an offence punishable under Section 196 of BNS (promoting enmity between groups) 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.

“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,” it added.

Pratapgarhi had uploaded a video recitation of a poem ‘Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” on X carrying words that were provocative, pitted communities against one another, hurt religious sentiments and were detrimental to national unity, police alleged.

However, the Bench said, “The poem does not refer to any religion, caste or language. It does not refer to persons belonging to any religion. By no stretch of imagination, does it promote enmity between different groups. We fail to understand how the statements therein are detrimental to national unity and how the statements will affect national unity. On its plain reading, the poem does not purport to affect anyone's religious feelings.”

Holding that the police machinery was a part of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, the Bench said, “Moreover, 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.”