Freedom of speech is the basis of democracy: SC; FIR against Pratapgarhi quashed
#News Bureau March 28,2025
In an important decision on Friday, the Supreme Court said that freedom of expression is an integral part of a healthy and civilized society. Under this decision, the court quashed an FIR registered against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi in Gujarat. This FIR was registered for a poem shared by him on social media.
The bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuiyan made a strong comment on the action of Gujarat Police and said that a crime like promoting enmity cannot be judged by the standards of ‘insecure people’ who consider everything a threat or criticism. This decision has come at a time when the defamation case of comedian Kunal Kamra for his ‘traitor’ remark against Shiv Sena chief Eknath Shinde is also in the headlines.
The controversy started when Imran Pratapgarhi posted a poem on social media. The song ‘Ae Khoon Ke Pyaase Baat Suno’ was playing in the background. This poem was seen as a taunt on the BJP-ruled Gujarat government. After this, Gujarat Police registered an FIR against him under Section 153A of the IPC (promoting enmity on the basis of religion, caste etc.). On January 17, the Gujarat High Court refused to quash this FIR. But the Supreme Court reserved the decision after hearing in January and now quashed it. During the hearing, the court said that this poem was neither anti-religion nor anti-national, and the police should have shown sensitivity.
The Supreme Court in its decision described freedom of expression as the basis of respectable life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The bench said, ‘Free expression of thoughts and feelings is a part of a healthy civilized society. A respectable life cannot be imagined without it. Literature, poetry, drama, art, satire – all these enrich life.’ The court criticized the attitude of the Gujarat High Court and said that the duty of the courts and the police is to protect constitutional rights. It said that ‘freedom of expression is the most precious right.’
The court also directed that reasonable restrictions on expression must be justified in fact, not imaginary or restrictive. The judges acknowledged that sometimes they may not personally like the words spoken or written, but they have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution and its values.
The court also directed that reasonable restrictions on expression must be justified in fact, not imaginary or restrictive. The judges acknowledged that sometimes they may not personally like the words spoken or written, but they have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution and its values.
This decision is historic in many ways. It sends a strong message in favour of freedom of expression, especially at a time when people are being sued for their views expressed on social media.
This decision can be an example in the context of cases like Kunal Kamra, where there is a growing trend of considering satire and criticism as a crime.
Kunal Kamra is facing a defamation case for calling Eknath Shinde a ‘traitor’ in a parody show, and this stance of the Supreme Court can raise hopes of relief in such cases.
The Supreme Court questioned the insensitivity of the Gujarat Police and said that they should understand the meaning of freedom of expression. The court also emphasized that every criticism cannot be seen as hostility or threat. Expressing displeasure over the Gujarat High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR, the Supreme Court said that lower courts will also have to come forward to protect constitutional rights.
This matter is not limited to the legal sphere only. There is a BJP government in Gujarat, and Imran Pratapgarhi is a Congress MP. His poem was considered a target on the ruling party, after which the FIR was also called politically motivated. This decision of the Supreme Court can be a relief for opposition leaders and activists, who often come under fire for their comments. Also, it gives strength to those who express themselves through literature and art.
The Supreme Court has directed the police to take into account what is right and wrong in imposing restrictions on expression, but the question is whether this will be implemented practically?
The debate on freedom of expression in India has been going on for a long time and at times the actions of the police and the government seem to limit it. This decision has raised the hope that the courts will play their role strongly in protecting constitutional values.
This decision of the Supreme Court gives new heights to freedom of expression. The cancellation of the FIR registered against Imran Pratapgarhi’s poem is not only his personal victory, but it is a message for every citizen who wants to express his views. Showing the mirror to the Gujarat Police and the High Court, the court made it clear that there is a place for dissent and criticism in democracy and it cannot be suppressed due to fear of ‘unsafe people’. This decision can prove to be a milestone in setting the limits of expression in the times to come.
