Why in the News?

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi, stating that even if many people dislike someone’s views, their right to express them must be respected and protected.

What was the Supreme Court’s rationale for quashing Imran Pratapgarhi’s FIR?

• Poem Did Not Incite Violence or Enmity: The court ruled that the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” did not promote violence or hatred but instead advocated facing injustice with love. Example: The court compared this to other forms of artistic expression, such as satire and stand-up comedy, which may provoke strong reactions but should still be protected under freedom of speech.
• Freedom of Expression is Fundamental to Democracy: The judgment emphasized that even if many people dislike or oppose certain views, an individual’s right to express them must be protected. Example: The ruling cited how literature, poetry, and films enrich public discourse, and restricting them would lead to a stifled society.
• Failure of Police to Conduct Preliminary Inquiry: The court noted that under Section 173(3) of the BNSS, the police must conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR for offenses punishable with 3 to 7 years of imprisonment. Example: If the police had followed this procedure, they would have found no prima facie case against Pratapgarhi, preventing an unjust criminal prosecution.

Why did Justices Oka and Bhuyan stress the importance of protecting free speech in their ruling?

• Essential for a Healthy Democracy: The court emphasized that freedom of expression is crucial for a vibrant democracy, where diverse opinions must be debated rather than suppressed. Example: The judges stated that even if many people dislike a view, it must still be protected, reinforcing that countering speech with speech, not suppression, is the right approach.
• Integral to Human Dignity and Fundamental Rights: The ruling linked free speech to Article 21 (Right to Life with Dignity), arguing that without the ability to express ideas, individuals cannot live a dignified life. Example: The court cited the Preamble of the Constitution, which guarantees liberty of thought and expression as a core constitutional ideal.
• Judiciary’s Duty to Protect Fundamental Rights: The judges stressed that if the police or executive fail to uphold free speech, the courts must step in to protect citizens’ rights under Article 19(1)(a). Example: The court stated that even judges may not always like certain spoken or written words, but they are bound by their duty to uphold the Constitution and free speech rights.

Which Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) sections did Gujarat Police invoke against Pratapgarhi, and what do they address?

• Section 196 – Promoting Enmity Between Groups: It Covers acts that promote enmity between different groups based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, or language and disturb harmony. Example: If a speech or post incites hostility between communities, it could fall under this section. However, the court found no such intent in Pratapgarhi’s poem.
• Section 299 – Outraging Religious Feelings: It Covers deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings by insulting a religion or religious beliefs. Example: If someone defames a religious text or practice with intent to offend, they may be booked under this section. The court ruled that Pratapgarhi’s poem had no such intent.
• Section 173(3) of BNSS – Preliminary Inquiry Requirement: Mandates a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR for offenses punishable by 3 to 7 years of imprisonment. Example: The court noted that the police should have conducted an inquiry first to see if a prima facie case existed, preventing unnecessary criminal charges.

What role did the Supreme Court assign to police and judiciary in upholding Article 19(1)(a)?

• Police Must Conduct a Preliminary Inquiry Before Filing an FIR: The court held that police must verify if a case genuinely falls under restrictions on free speech before registering an FIR. Unwarranted criminal proceedings can have a chilling effect on expression.
  • Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, ruling that arbitrary arrests for online speech violate free expression.
• Judiciary Must Act as the Guardian of Fundamental Rights: Courts must intervene when executive actions violate fundamental rights, ensuring that speech is not suppressed under vague or excessive laws.
  • S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989): The Supreme Court ruled that mere disagreement or offense cannot be grounds for restricting free speech.
• Both Institutions Must Uphold Constitutional Ideals: Police and courts must ensure that freedom of expression is safeguarded in a democracy, as it is crucial for a vibrant public discourse.
  • Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962): The Supreme Court clarified that only speech inciting violence or public disorder can be restricted.

Way forward: 

• Strengthen Safeguards Against Misuse of Laws: Implement clear guidelines for law enforcement to distinguish between genuine hate speech and protected expression to prevent arbitrary FIRs. Example: Mandatory legal training for police on free speech rights and BNSS provisions.
• Judicial Oversight and Quick Disposal of Cases: Establish fast-track mechanisms for courts to quash frivolous cases that violate Article 19(1)(a). Example: Special benches to review cases involving free speech violations to ensure timely justice.

Mains PYQ:

Q  Question: What do you understand by the concept “freedom of speech and expression”? Does it cover hate speech also? Why do the films in India stand on a slightly different plane from other forms of expression? Discuss. [UPSC 2014]

Linkage: The scope of freedom of speech and expression, a central issue in the Pratapgarhi case. 

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now