Court Tells Gujarat Police to Learn What Free Speech Is

Observes that Respect for Artistic Freedom Is Diminishing

March 6, 2025

The Supreme Court told the Gujarat Police to respect freedom of speech and expression, especially 75 years after the Constitution came into force. The police had registered a case against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi, accusing him of posting content that allegedly incited unrest. The Court made this remark while reserving its verdict on Pratapgarhi’s petition seeking to quash the case.

The remark was made by a bench comprising Justices A.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, as reported by The New Indian Express.

The controversy arose from a video that Pratapgarhi uploaded on Instagram, featuring a poem titled “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” (“O bloodthirsty ones, listen.”) playing in the background.

The prosecution argued that the poem’s words were objectionable and that it incited hostility against the State, charging the MP under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including those related to promoting enmity between groups, prejudicing national integration and outraging religious sentiments.

Pratapgarhi challenged the FIR in the Gujarat High Court, which refused to quash it.

The High Court noted that the poem’s tone suggested opposition to the ruling authority and that the public’s reaction to the post indicated a disturbance in social harmony, according to The Indian Express.

The court also remarked that as a Member of Parliament, Pratapgarhi was expected to act with greater restraint and awareness of the law’s repercussions, and criticised him for not cooperating with the police investigation, citing his failure to appear despite being summoned.

At the Supreme Court hearing, Justice Oka called out the Gujarat Police for lacking sensitivity in handling the case. He stated that the poem conveyed a message of non-violence, not incitement, and did not target any religion or community. He questioned the police’s understanding of creative expression and observed that respect for artistic freedom was diminishing.

The bench stressed that freedom of speech and expression must be upheld, particularly in a democracy.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Gujarat government, contended that different people might interpret the poem’s message differently. He also pointed out that Pratapgarhi had claimed his social media team uploaded the post, implying that he should still be held accountable for his team’s actions. Justice Oka, however, responded by stating that the police should have carefully read and understood the poem before lodging an FIR.

Pratapgarhi was represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal.

The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution while clarifying the circumstances under which it can be restricted under Article 19(2). Through several landmark judgments, the Court has established that restrictions on speech must be reasonable, narrowly defined and directly linked to public harm.

In Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950), the Court ruled that freedom of speech is essential to democracy and can only be restricted under the grounds explicitly mentioned in Article 19(2). The case struck down a law that banned the entry of a publication into Madras, stating that restrictions cannot be vague or overly broad.

The same year, in Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, the Court ruled that pre-censorship on newspapers was unconstitutional unless justified under the exceptions in Article 19(2), holding that restricting publication before it is printed is an excessive limitation on free speech.

The Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) judgment expanded the scope of free speech, linking it to personal liberty under Article 21. The Court ruled that any restriction must be fair, just and reasonable. A decade later, in S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989), the Court ruled that speech cannot be suppressed merely because it offends a section of society. It held that only speech posing a direct and immediate threat to public disorder can be restricted, applying the “clear and present danger” test to assess whether a restriction is justified.