The FIR originated from a video posted by Pratapgarhi on Instagram, which showcased him at a mass marriage event in Jamnagar, Gujarat, with the aforementioned poem playing in the background. The complainant alleged that the poem's lyrics were provocative, detrimental to national unity, and hurtful to religious sentiments. Acting on this complaint, the Gujarat Police registered the FIR on January 3, invoking sections related to promoting enmity and harming national integration.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court criticized the Gujarat Police for their handling of the case. Justice Oka remarked that after 75 years of the Constitution's existence, law enforcement agencies should have a clear understanding of the right to freedom of speech and expression. He highlighted that the poem promotes non-violence and does not target any religion or community. The bench underscored that free expression of thoughts and views is integral to a healthy, civilized society and is essential for leading a dignified life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court further elaborated that when allegations are based on spoken or written words, it is imperative for police officers to carefully assess the content to determine if they constitute a cognizable offence. The bench emphasized that the police must read the contents of such expressions meticulously to ensure that the fundamental right to free speech is not unjustly curtailed.
This ruling follows the Supreme Court's interim order on January 21, which had granted Pratapgarhi protection from arrest and directed that no coercive steps be taken against him based on the impugned FIR. During the hearings, the bench had expressed reservations about the police action, noting that the poem in question actually propagates a message of non-violence and has nothing to do with religion or any anti-national activity. Justice Oka pointed out that the police exhibited a lack of sensitivity in registering the FIR, as the poem encourages responding to injustice with love and does not incite violence.
The Gujarat High Court had earlier refused to quash the FIR, leading Pratapgarhi to approach the Supreme Court. The apex court's decision to dismiss the FIR reinforces the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, especially in cases where creative works are involved. The ruling serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to exercise due diligence and sensitivity when dealing with matters pertaining to artistic and literary expressions.