In fraught times, every restatement of the basic elements of free speech law and democracy is wholly welcome. The Supreme Court of India judgment quashing a Gujarat police case against Congress Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) Imran Pratapgarhi for posting an allegedly inflammatory poem on social media is a welcome intervention in favour of free speech. Its importance is that it restates nearly forgotten aspects of free speech jurisprudence in an era in which any speech can be criminalised if powerful or influential people claim to be hurt by it. The Court has reminded the police that they have to honour and preserve the freedom of expression of citizens. For overzealous policemen who rush to register a first information report (FIR) splattered with as many of speech-restrictive penal provisions as possible, even when it is clear that the complaint is politically or communally motivated, the Court has advised that they should consider the effect of spoken or written words based on the standard of their effect on “reasonable, strong-minded firm and courageous individuals, and not based on people with weak and vacillating minds”. “The effect of the spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of the standards of people who always have a sense of insecurity or of those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position,” says the Bench comprising Justices Abhay. S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
The Court has gone on to analyse the poem posted by Mr. Pratapgarhi. It finds that it is not concerned with any religion, race, language, regional group, caste or community and makes no imputation against any of them. It contains no appeal likely to cause disharmony or feeling of enmity, or hatred or ill-will. It dismisses as ‘ridiculous’ to accuse the appellant of any intention to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or belief. “The poem only tells the rulers what the reaction will be if the fight for rights is met with injustice.” In effect, the Court has found that none of the ingredients of the offences relating to divisive speech, speeches having a detrimental effect on public order or any insult or provocation against any religious sentiments, could be found in it. Overall, the verdict will have to serve as a guide to police officers deciding to invoke Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (equivalent of the Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code), often under political direction, whenever a speech containing trenchant criticism of the government or Ministers is made by anyone. As defamation cannot be the subject of an FIR or a complaint, the police often invoke the sections related to speech restrictions to browbeat critics and dissenters.
Published – March 31, 2025 12:20 am IST
