In late March, the Supreme Court — for the second time in recent weeks — had an occasion to deal with important issues around the freedom of speech and expression. As is often the case, the origins of the matter were innocuous: In this event, a poem recited at a wedding function by the Rajya Sabha MP, Imran Pratapgarhi. The poem, in essence, was addressed to society’s rulers, and vowed to meet injustice with sacrifice, tears, and love. When the poem was uploaded to YouTube, certain individuals lodged a police complaint, and the police registered a First Information Report (FIR) against Pratapgarhi, under various sections of the criminal law. These sections pertained to spreading enmity between sections of the society, hurting religious sentiments, and undermining the integrity of the nation.

Pratapgarhi approached the High Court (HC) of Gujarat to quash the FIR. The HC refused, on the ground that the investigation was still at a “nascent stage”. This, then, brought him to the Supreme Court. The apex court set aside the judgment of the HC. It held that no case was made out at all, and that the FIR deserved to be quashed. In doing so, the bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan did two important things — one substantive and one procedural.

On the substantive issue, the Court made clear that none of the elements of any of the invoked criminal law sections had been made out. The poem had nothing to do with any community, race, or religion, it did not jeopardise the country’s integrity, and nor did it call for violence. One may think that this is rather basic — indeed, the Court spent around 10 pages listing out the sections that the police had........

© hindustantimes