New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday highlighted the importance of law enforcement understanding the right to freedom of speech and expression, especially after 75 years of the Constitution’s implementation. The court reserved its verdict on Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi’s plea to quash an FIR against him for allegedly sharing a provocative song.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan stressed the constitutional safeguard under Article 19(1)(a), asserting that this right must be protected.
“Freedom of speech and expression must be upheld,” Justice Oka remarked. He further stated that police should exercise caution before filing FIRs in such matters.
“Law enforcement needs to show some understanding before lodging an FIR. They should at least read and comprehend (the Constitution). After 75 years, it is high time the police grasp the essence of free speech and expression,” Justice Oka said.
The case pertains to an FIR registered against Pratapgarhi on January 3 in connection with a song played during a mass marriage event in Jamnagar, Gujarat. Justice Oka observed that the poem in question did not incite violence but rather conveyed a message of peace.
“At its core, it is a poem,” he noted. “There seems to be an issue with its translation. It does not target any religion. Instead, it implies that even if others resort to violence, we will not. That is the essence of the poem. It is not directed against any specific group.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Gujarat police, dismissed the poem as “sadak chhap” (pedestrian) and stated it could not be attributed to renowned poet Faiz Ahmad Faiz.
“The real issue was the video message (by the MP), which caused the controversy,” Mehta argued.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Pratapgarhi, contended that the video was posted by the politician’s team and not by him personally. Mehta, however, maintained that the MP remained accountable since the content appeared on his official social media handle.
Following arguments from both sides, the court stated, “Leave granted. Submissions heard. Judgment reserved.”
Earlier, on January 21, the Supreme Court had stayed proceedings against Pratapgarhi over the allegedly edited video of the song and issued notices to the Gujarat government and complainant Kishanbhai Deepakbhai Nanda.
Pratapgarhi had challenged the Gujarat High Court’s January 17 decision, which declined to quash the FIR, citing the ongoing nature of the investigation. The Congress MP, who leads the party’s minority cell, was booked under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Sections 196 (promoting enmity between different groups) and 197 (statements prejudicial to national integration), among others.
The FIR stemmed from a 46-second video posted on X, where Pratapgarhi was seen walking amid a shower of flower petals while a song played in the background. The complaint alleged that the lyrics were provocative and threatened national unity. However, Pratapgarhi argued that the poem carried “a message of love and non-violence.”
He also claimed that the FIR was politically motivated and meant to target him due to his Congress affiliation. Public prosecutor Hardik Dave opposed the plea, asserting that the poem’s words encouraged dissent against the state. He further noted that Pratapgarhi failed to appear despite multiple summonses.
In its January 17 order, the Gujarat High Court referred to the reaction generated by the post and stated that the resulting impact was “very serious” and had disrupted social harmony. The Supreme Court will now deliver its ruling on the matter.