By Sujit Bhar
Freedom of speech is possibly a lost concept in India today. As the Supreme Court of India has recently observed, there is little comprehension among the public and, especially within the police, those responsible for maintaining law and order in states, as to what this term means.
The top court of the country addressed the delicate balance (or the lack of it) between freedom of speech and law enforcement’s understanding of creative expression. The case revolved around Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi, who faced legal action over a poem he shared on social media.
The Court’s observations not only highlighted the significance of artistic freedom, but also underscored the necessity for authorities to comprehend and respect constitutional rights, even after 75 years of India’s independence.
The instigation for the case was a seemingly innocuous incident on December 29, 2024, when Pratapgarhi had posted a 46-second video clip on his social media handle, featuring the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” (“Listen, oh bloodthirsty ones”) playing in the background. The video, captured during a mass marriage event in Jamnagar, Gujarat, depicted Pratapgarhi being showered with flower petals while the poem played in the background.
This enraged a resident of Jamnagar, who filed an FIR against Pratapgarhi, alleging that the poem was “provocative, detrimental to national integrity, and hurtful to religious sentiments.” The FIR invoked provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, related to promoting enmity and disturbing social harmony.
When Pratapgarhi moved the Gujarat High Court, seeking to quash the FIR on January 17, 2025, the High Court refused to do so, emphasizing the need for further investigation. The Court noted that the poem’s tenor indicated something about the throne and that responses to the post suggested a potential disturbance in social harmony.
The High Court underscored that all citizens, especially an MP, should behave in a manner that does not disrupt communal or social harmony.
Pratapgarhi, naturally, moved the top court against this decision of the High Court. The case went before the bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan. The bench critically examined the FIR and the poem in question, following which Justice Oka observed: “This is the problem—now nobody has any respect for creativity. If you read it plainly, it says that even if you suffer injustice, suffer it with love, even if people die, we will accept it.”
The top court emphasized that the poem promoted non-violence and was not directed against any particular community or religion. The bench further highlighted the importance of understanding freedom of speech and expression, stating: “Seventy-five years after the existence of the Constitution, freedom of speech and expression at least now has to be understood by the police.”
The Court also expressed concern over the lack of sensitivity shown by the authorities in handling matters of creative expression.
So what was the poem all about? The poem basically conveys a message of enduring injustice with love and refraining from violence, even in the face of adversity. The poem advocates for non-violence and resilience, urging individuals to respond to injustice with love rather than retaliation. Such a message aligns with the principles of peaceful resistance and cannot be construed as incitement to violence.
This delicate balance between free speech in this country and what and when it overflows the cup of tolerance has been dealt with by different courts of the country on several occasions. Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression to all citizens. This fundamental right allows individuals to express their opinions and ideas without fear of censorship or retaliation. However, this freedom is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), which permits the state to impose limitations in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, public order, decency, morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence.
Over the years, Indian courts have grappled with cases where freedom of speech intersects with other societal interests. In the landmark case of Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar (1962), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the sedition law, but clarified that only speech that incites violence or public disorder would fall within its ambit. Similarly, in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015), the Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which criminalized offensive online content, deeming it vague and unconstitutional.
These judgments underscore the judiciary’s role in balancing free speech with other societal interests.
However, freedom of speech is the bedrock of a vibrant democracy. It allows for the exchange of diverse opinions, fosters public debate, and enables citizens to hold those in power accountable. A healthy democracy thrives on dissent and dialogue, which are essential for the growth of a robust opposition and an informed citizenry. Suppressing free speech not only stifles individual expression, but also hampers societal progress by preventing the discussion of alternative viewpoints.
The Supreme Court’s observations in Imran Pratapgarhi’s case will stand as a poignant reminder of the need to uphold constitutional freedoms and appreciate creative expressions. It is imperative for law enforcement agencies and the judiciary to align their actions with the constitutional mandate, ensuring that fundamental rights are protected, and artistic expressions are respected.
The post Speak Not In Fear appeared first on India Legal.