75-Year-Old Republic Must Not Be So Shaky That Poetry Or Comedy Is Alleged To Be Creating Animosity: Supreme Court

In a strong condemnation of the growing misuse of criminal law against artistic expressions and dissenting ideas, the Supreme Court ruled today that constitutional protection of free speech is not contingent on the popular acceptance of the views expressed.

While quashing an FIR registered by the Gujarat Police against Congress Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgadhi over a poem shared on social media, the Court lamented that even after 75 years of independence, our police machinery is not aware of the Constitutional guarantees.

In what appeared to be a rebuke of the societal intolerance towards contrarian ideas, the Court stated :

 "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."

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the case showed that even after 75 years of the existence of our Constitution, the law enforcement machinery of the State is either ignorant about the important fundamental right conferred upon the citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution or does not care for this fundamental right.

The poem in question was "Ae Khoon Ke Pyase", the recital video of which was shared by the MP on his social media handle. The Gujarat Police registered an FIR alleging that the poem created disharmony among communities, outraged religious feelings and was prejudicial to national integration. Offences punishable under Sections 196, 197(1), 302, 299, 57 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 were invoked in the FIR.

Poem has nothing to do with religion; spreads message of love and non-violence

The Court noted that a plain reading of the poem showed that it had nothing to do with any religion or community, nor had anything to jeopardise national integration or the sovereignty of the country. As per the poem, while fighting to secure our rights, if we are met with injustice, we will face it with love. It gives a warning to the throne (the rulers) that if the bodies of our loved ones are a threat to the rulers, we will bury our loved ones happily.

The poem gives a message of non-violence that injustices will be met with love. 'Throne' is a symbolic reference to rulers propagating injustices. It gives a warning that if the bodies of loved ones are a threat to the throne, we will happily accept the deaths of our loved ones.

The judgment examined each of the sections invoked in the FIR and found that none of them are attracted.

"On a plain reading of the poem, we find that the same has nothing to do with any religion, caste, community or any particular group. The poem's words do not bring about or promote disharmony or feelings of hatred or ill-will. It only seeks to challenge the injustice made by the ruler. It is impossible to say that the words used by the appellant disturb or are likely to disturb public tranquility. Therefore, neither clause (a) nor clause (b) of Section 196 (1) are attracted. There is no allegation against the appellant of organising any exercise, movement, drill or similar activity. There is no allegation against the appellant that he uttered the words in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies. Hence, clause (c) will have no application. The appellant has put a video of a mass marriage function, and in the background, the words are uttered. Therefore, Section 196 can have no application."

Likewise, Section 197(imputations prejudicial to national integration), Section 299/302 (deliberate insult to religious feelings), were also found to be inapplicable.

"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 Court observed.

The judgment also quoted the observations made by Justice DY Chandrachud, while he was a judge of the Bombay High Court, in the case Anand Chintamani Dighe and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra as follows :

"Right of the playwright, of the artist, writer and of the poet will be reduced to husk if the freedom to portray a message – whether it be in canvas, prose or verse – is to depend upon the popular perception of the acceptability of that message. Popular perceptions cannot override constitutional values such as the guarantee of freedom."

Also from the judgment - 'Judges Must Protect Freedom Of Speech Even If They Don't Like What Was Said' : Supreme Court Quashes Gujarat FIR Against Congress MP Over Poem

For 'Promoting Enmity' Offence, Words Must Not Be Judged On Standards Of Insecure People Or Those Seeing Criticism As Threat : Supreme Court

Other reports about the judgment can be read here.

Case no. – Crl.A. No. 1545/2025