While upholding the Right of Free Speech firmly and giving relief in the case when an FIR was registered against Congress MP and Poet Imran Pratapgarhi, the Supreme Court has established that Courts, particularly the constitutional Courts, must be at the forefront to zealously protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. It is the bounden duty of the Courts to ensure that the Constitution and the ideals of the Constitution are not trampled upon. Endeavour of the courts should always be to protect and promote the fundamental rights, including the freedom of speech and expression, which is one of the most cherished rights a citizen can have in a liberal constitutional democracy.
The court said that,
“On 26th January 2025, our Constitution became 75 years old. One of the most important fundamental rights conferred on the citizens of India is under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution. It is the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. This case shows that even after 75 years of the existence of our Constitution, the law enforcement machinery of the State is either ignorant about this important fundamental right or does not care for this fundamental right.”
The Issue in the Case
The issue in the appeal revolved around a poem recited in the background of a video clip. The video clip was posted on social media by the appellant (Imran Pratapgarhi (. The text of the poem reads thus:
“ऐ ख़ून के प्यासों बात सुनो
गर हक़ की लड़ाई ज़ुल्म सही
हम ज़ुल्म से इश्क़ निभा देंगे
गर शम्मआ ए गिरिया आतिश है
हर राह वो शम्मआ जला देंगे
गर लाश हमारे अपनों की
ख़तरा है तुम्हारी मसनद का
उस रब की कसम हंसते-हंसते
इतनी लाशें दफना देंगे
ऐ खून के प्यासों बात सुनो
जो सब्र में मिलती है क़ु’अत
वो जब्र में किसने पायी है
ये सू’ले चमन से अजाबे खिजां
पल दो पल की अंगड़ाई है
दो चार बरस खिल जाओ
हां कब्र में वो तनहाई है
हर बाग़ तेरा सूना होगा
सैयादों की रुसवाई है.”
[O blood thirsty ones, listen to me
If fighting for the right is worth the oppression
We will love the oppression
If the candle of the mountain is a fire
The candle will light every path
If the corpse of our loved ones
Is a threat to your throne
I swear by God
We will bury so many corpses smilingly
O blood thirsty ones, listen to me
The power that is found in patience
Who has found it in force
This pain of the garden is a surprise
It is a stretch of a moment or two
Blossom for two or four years
Yes, there is that loneliness in the grave
Every garden of yours will be desolate
It is the disgrace of the hunters.]
The allegation in the complaint was that the spoken words of the poem incite people of one community against another, and it hurts a community’s religious and social sentiments. It is alleged that the song had lyrics that incited people of other communities to fight for the community’s rights. It was alleged that the video posted by the appellant created enmity between two communities at the national level and hatred towards each other. It was further alleged that it had a detrimental effect on national unity.
Submissions by the Parties
On behalf of the petitioner, it was submitted that the poem does not promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between the various religious, racial, language or regional groups and castes or communities. It was submitted that, on its plain reading, it was about sacrificing oneself to fight for rights and truth. The poem promotes non-violence and preaches that one must suffer injustice with love, and registering FIR based on the said poem violated the appellant’s fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. He submitted that the police have shown insensitivity. Even the High Court has not attempted to appreciate the message sought to be conveyed by the poem.
The Analysis of the Court
On plain reading of the original Urdu version and its English translation, the following conclusions were drawn by the court:
a) This poem has nothing to do with any religion, community, region or race;
b) By no stretch of imagination, the contents affect national integration;
c) It does not jeopardise the sovereignty, unity, integrity or security of India;
d) It suggests that while fighting to secure our rights if we are met with injustice, we will face it with love. We will use our tears as flames to light up all paths;
e) It gives a warning to the throne (the rulers). It states that if the bodies of our loved ones are a threat to the rulers, we will bury our loved ones happily;
f) It preaches non-violence. It says that if the fight for our rights is met with injustice, we will meet injustice with love. This gives a message that injustice should not be retaliated, but it should be met with love;
g) The poem refers to the throne in the context of the fight against injustice. The reference to the throne is symbolic. It is a reference to an entity which is responsible for causing injustice. It gives a warning that if the bodies of loved ones are a threat to the throne, we will happily accept the deaths of our loved ones. It suggests that one should be willing to sacrifice life in the fight against injustice; and
h) Thus, the poem does not encourage violence.
On the contrary, it encourages people to desist from resorting to violence and to face injustice with love. It states that if our fight with injustice results into the death of our near and dear ones, we would be happy to bury their bodies.
On the aspect whether any offence made out in the present case, after reading the content of the FIR, the court held that,
“the poem does not refer to any religion, caste or language. It does not refer to persons belonging to any religion. By no stretch of imagination, does it promote enmity between different groups. We fail to understand how the statements therein are detrimental to national unity and how the statements will affect national unity. On its plain reading, the poem does not purport to affect anyone’s religious feelings.
** ** **
On a plain reading of the poem, we find that the same has nothing to do with any religion, caste, community or any particular group. The poem’s words do not bring about or promote disharmony or feelings of hatred or ill-will. It only seeks to challenge the injustice made by the ruler. It is impossible to say that the words used by the appellant disturb or are likely to disturb public tranquility. Therefore, neither clause (a) nor clause (b) of Section 196 (1) are attracted. There is no allegation against the appellant of organising any exercise, movement, drill or similar activity. There is no allegation against the appellant that he uttered the words in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies. Hence, clause (c) will have no application. The appellant has put a video of a mass marriage function, and in the background, the words are uttered. Therefore, Section 196 can have no application.
** ** **
the poem does not make or publish any imputation and is not concerned with any religious, racial, language, regional group, caste, or community. It does not suggest that any class of persons have been denied rights as citizens because they are members of a religious, racial, language, regional group, caste, or community. It does not make or publish any assertion, counsel, plea or appeal likely to cause disharmony or feeling of enmity or hatred or ill will. The poem does not publish or make any false or misleading information.
To say the least, it is ridiculous to say that the act of the appellant is intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. The poem only tells the rulers what the reaction will be if the fight for rights is met with injustice.
** ** **
The police officers must abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals. The philosophy of the Constitution and its ideals can be found in the preamble itself. The preamble lays down that the people of India have solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic and to secure all its citizens liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. Therefore, liberty of thoughts and expression is one of the ideals of our Constitution. Article 19(1)(a) confers a fundamental right on all citizens to freedom of speech and expression. The police machinery is a part of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Moreover, the police officers being citizens, are bound to abide by the Constitution. They are bound to honour and uphold freedom of speech and expression conferred on all citizens.”
The Court accordingly, quashed and set aside the impugned order of the High Court and FIR registered in the case.
Reference
Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujrat (2025)