SC quashes FIR against MP Imran Pratapgarhi over Instagram post saying a person has the right to freedom of speech
The Supreme Court on Friday quashed the FIR filed by the Gujarat Police against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi over an allegedly inflammatory Instagram post, reaffirming that judges are duty-bound to uphold fundamental rights under Article 19(1) regardless of their personal opinions about the content. The verdict also emphasized the necessity of protecting freedom of speech and expression.
A bench of Justices A S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan ruled in favor of Pratapgarhi’s appeal against a Gujarat High Court order that had refused to dismiss the criminal proceedings related to his post. The judges determined that no offense was legally applicable in this case.
According to the prosecution, Pratapgarhi had attended a wedding in Jamnagar and later uploaded a video on Instagram featuring the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” in the background, which was deemed objectionable by authorities.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court highlighted the crucial role of free expression in a democratic society, stating, “The freedom to express thoughts and opinions, whether by individuals or groups, is an essential aspect of a civilized society. Without this liberty, it is impossible to enjoy the dignity of life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In a healthy democracy, differing viewpoints should be countered with opposing perspectives rather than suppressed.”
The court underscored that even if a majority of people find certain views disagreeable, the right of an individual to express them must be safeguarded. It further emphasized that literature, including poetry, drama, cinema, satire, and other forms of artistic expression, adds depth and meaning to human life.
Judges, the ruling asserted, have a responsibility to uphold constitutional rights even if they disapprove of the language or sentiments expressed. “As members of the judiciary, we are obligated to protect the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 19(1). We must uphold the Constitution and its core principles, irrespective of personal beliefs,” the judgment read.
The bench also stressed the role of courts in protecting citizens’ fundamental rights, particularly emphasizing the responsibility of constitutional courts to prevent any encroachment upon these liberties. “It is the solemn duty of the judiciary to ensure that the Constitution and its ideals remain intact. Our approach must always be to defend and advance fundamental rights, including freedom of speech and expression, which is the cornerstone of any liberal democratic framework.”
The Supreme Court further reminded law enforcement agencies of their obligation to respect constitutional values. “Police officers, as citizens of this nation, are duty-bound to uphold the Constitution. The ideals of liberty, thought, and expression, as enshrined in the Preamble, are fundamental to the Indian Republic. Therefore, the police must align their actions with these constitutional principles and safeguard individual rights.”
Pratapgarhi was originally booked on January 3 under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 196 (promoting enmity between different groups based on religion, race, or language and acts detrimental to harmony), Section 197 (statements or assertions harmful to national integration), Section 299 (deliberate acts meant to insult religious beliefs and outrage religious sentiments), Section 302 (uttering words intended to wound religious feelings), and Section 57 (abetting offenses involving public disturbance or involving ten or more individuals).
The MP approached the Gujarat High Court seeking to have the FIR quashed. However, the prosecution argued that his poem’s content was inciteful and directed against the ruling state authority. It claimed that the responses to his post demonstrated serious social repercussions and a potential threat to communal harmony.
Rejecting Pratapgarhi’s plea, the Gujarat High Court had observed that the poem contained references to “the throne,” suggesting it could be interpreted as a challenge to the state’s authority. The court also noted that reactions to the post from members of the community indicated unrest and a potential disturbance to social harmony.
The high court further stated that every Indian citizen, particularly a Member of Parliament, should act in a manner that promotes communal and social harmony. It emphasized that as a lawmaker, Pratapgarhi should be even more cautious of the consequences of his words and actions.
Additionally, the high court justified the need for further investigation, citing the FIR’s contents and the legal provisions invoked. It noted that the MP had not cooperated with the investigation, having failed to appear in response to official notices. The court remarked that as a legislator, he was expected to set an example by respecting the investigative process and adhering to legal procedures.
However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, reinforcing the importance of protecting free speech and reminding authorities of their constitutional responsibilities. The ruling serves as a strong reaffirmation of the judiciary’s commitment to preserving fundamental rights in a democratic society.
