'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

The Supreme Court on Friday (March 28) quashed an FIR registered by the Gujarat Police against Congress Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi over his Instagram post featuring a video clip with the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” in the background.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, allowing the petition filed by Pratapgarhi, observed that no offence was made out.

In its judgment, the bench underscored the importance of protecting the freedom of speech and expression and reminded the Courts and the Police of their duty to uphold the rights of persons expressing unpopular opinions.

Justice Oka read out the relevant excerpts from the judgment as follows : 

Literate and arts make life more meaningful; freedom of expression is necessary for a dignified life

"Free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or groups of individuals is an integral part of a healthy civilized society. Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In a healthy democracy, the views of 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 person to express the views must be respected and protected. Literature including poetry, dramas, films, satire, and art make the life of human beings more meaningful."

Courts must uphold rights even if they don't like what was expressed

Seemingly criticising the Gujarat High Court for refusing to quash the FIR, the Supreme Court observed :

"The Courts are duty bound to uphold and enforce the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Sometimes we the judges may not like the spoken or written words, but still, it is our duty to uphold the fundamental rights under Article 19(1). We judges are also under an obligation to uphold the Constitution and the respective ideals.

 It is the duty of the court to step in and to protect the fundamental rights. 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 court to ensure that the Constitution and ideals of the Constitution are not trampled upon."

The endeavour of the Court should be to always protect and promote the fundamental rights including the freedom of speech and expression which is the most important right citizens can have in all liberal constitutional democracy."

Duty of police officers

The judgment also had pertinent observations for the police force as well, who were overzealous in lodging the FIR.

"The police officer must abide by the Constitution and respect the ideals. The philosophy of the constitutional ideals can be found in the Constitution itself. In the preamble, it is laid down that the people of India solemnly decided to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic and to secure for all its citizens liberty of thought and expression. Therefore. Liberty of thought and expression is one of the ideals of our constitution

The police officers being citizens are bound to abide by the constitution and they are bound to uphold the right."

The Court observed that for the offence under Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the spoken or written words will have to be considered based on standards of a reasonable strong-minded firm and courageous individual and not based on standards of people with weak and oscillating minds.

"The effect of spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of standards of the people who always have the sense of insecurity or those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position," the Court observed.

Background

The FIR was registered in Jamnagar under Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, and 57 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Section 196 pertains to promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.

On January 17, 2025, the Gujarat High Court refused to quash the FIR, noting that the poem's content had references to “the throne” and that responses to the post suggested a potential disturbance in social harmony. The High Court said that as an MP, Pratapgarhi was expected to know the repercussions of such posts and avoid actions that could disrupt social harmony.

The High Court observed that further investigation was necessary as Pratapgarhi had not cooperated with the investigation and failed to respond to notices requiring his presence before the police.

Pratapgarhi challenged the High Court's decision before the Supreme Court. On January 25, the Supreme Court issued notice in the matter and granted interim relief, directing that no further steps be taken concerning the FIR until further orders.

During subsequent hearings, the Supreme Court questioned the Gujarat Police's decision to register the FIR. Justice Oka criticized the lack of sensitivity shown by the police and remarked that the poem conveyed a message of non-violence. He said that the police must understand the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the State of Gujarat submitted that the public might have interpreted the poem differently. He also contended that Pratapgarhi was responsible for the actions of his social media team, which uploaded the video.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal for Pratapgarhi contended that the Supreme Court must criticise the High Court for its approach in this case.

The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on March 3.

Case no. – Crl.A. No. 1545/2025

Case Title – Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362

Click here to read the judgment