Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi; Upholds Freedom Of Expression

Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi has received significant relief from the Supreme Court, which quashed the FIR registered against him.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan ruled in favor of the MP, citing that the FIR violated his fundamental right to freedom of thought and expression.

Court Stresses Importance Of Freedom Of Expression

In its judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized that without the freedom of thought and expression, it would be impossible for individuals to live a dignified life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court affirmed that in a healthy democracy, people should address differing viewpoints through counter-arguments and that even if a large group disagrees with an idea, they must safeguard the right of an individual to express their opinion.

Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka highlighted the significance of literature, including poetry, drama, satire, and other forms of art, which enrich human life and contribute to a meaningful existence.

He stressed that, despite any personal disliking of the words spoken or written, the constitutional right to free speech must be upheld, as it is one of the most cherished freedoms.

Supreme Court Criticizes Police Handling Of Case

Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka pointed out that when a charge is made in writing, the police officer must thoroughly examine the matter, especially when the alleged crime involves spoken or written words.

He remarked that judges, although they might not agree with the content, must respect the constitutional protection provided to freedom of expression.

In response to the police’s handling of the case, the Court made an important observation: after 75 years of the Constitution’s implementation, law enforcement must understand the significance of freedom of speech.

Justice Oka stressed that the police should demonstrate more sensitivity before registering an FIR, taking the time to read and understand the relevant constitutional provisions.

Imran Pratapgarhi’s Video And Alleged Inflammatory Poem

Imran Pratapgarhi posted a video on Instagram, where the poem ‘Aye Khoon Ke Pyase Baat Suno’ (Listen, O Thirsty for Blood) played in the background, which led to the FIR against him.

The Gujarat Police had lodged the FIR, alleging that the poem incited violence.

They argued that the video, shared by Pratapgarhi after attending a wedding in Jamnagar, had the potential to cause misunderstandings due to its content.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Gujarat Police, argued that a street composition, not the renowned poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz, wrote the poem.

Further, he claimed that Pratapgarhi’s social media team posted the video message, and they should hold the MP accountable for their actions.

Supreme Court Defends Poem’s Message

On the other hand, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Imran Pratapgarhi, argued that Pratapgarhi’s team shared the video message, not the MP himself.

Sibal maintained that the poem in question conveyed a message of non-violence, rather than promoting any religious or anti-national sentiment.

The Court concurred, stating that the poem ‘Aye Khoon Ke Pyase Baat Suno’ intended to spread a message of love and non-violence, even in the face of injustice.

The Court found no evidence linking the poem to any criminal activity or harmful agenda.

Also Read: Supreme Court Delays Farmer Protest Case; Medical Assistance For Dallewal Under Scrutiny