Freedom of Speech - Mere recital of a poem or any form of art or entertainment, such as, stand-up comedy, can not lead to animosity or hatred amongst different communities. Can not stifle legitimate expressions of view in the public domain which is so fundamental to a free society

Supreme Court upholds freedom of speech in Imran Pratapgadhi Case. Apex Court quashes FIR against MP for reciting poem, reinforces protection of artistic expression

The Supreme Court in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat quashed the FIR registered against Member of Parliament Imran Pratapgadhi by the State of Gujarat, affirming the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. The case arose from allegations that a poem recited by Pratapgadhi in a video posted on social media incited communal disharmony and hatred.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, ruled that the poem in question did not promote enmity among different communities, nor did it disturb national harmony. The bench emphasized that mere recital of a poem or any form of artistic expression cannot be alleged to incite hatred or animosity. The judgment underscored the importance of judicial protection of fundamental rights, particularly the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The Court noted that the poem neither referred to any religion, caste, or community, nor did it contain any assertions that could affect national integration or sovereignty. It was described as a message of non-violence and love, challenging injustice without resorting to violence.

Justice Oka, in delivering the judgment, stated, "Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Literature, including poetry, dramas, films, stage shows, and art, make the lives of human beings more meaningful."

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's earlier decision to allow the FIR to stand, citing an improper understanding of the fundamental right involved. The Court emphasized that law enforcement must be sensitized to constitutional values and ideals, including the freedom of speech and expression.

In a significant observation, the Court highlighted the need for police officers to conduct preliminary inquiries in cases alleging offences based on speech, to ensure fundamental rights are not infringed upon. The decision also pointed out that allegations of offences covered by reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) must be scrutinized thoroughly to protect the rights under Article 19(1)(a).

The ruling sends a strong message about the protection of artistic expression and the right to dissent in a democratic society. It reinforces that the judiciary plays a crucial role in safeguarding constitutional values and freedoms against unwarranted allegations.

The decision is celebrated as a victory for free speech advocates and artists, reaffirming that artistic and literary works should be free from censorship based on popular perceptions or majority views.

Statutory provisions: Article 19(1)(a) Constitution of India, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, 57, 173

Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2711582