New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday (March 3), while reserving its verdict on a plea by Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi seeking to quash an FIR against him for allegedly sharing a provocative song, said that the freedom of speech and expression had to be at least now understood by the police after 75 years of the Constitution.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, which was hearing a plea by Pratapgarhi challenging an order of the Gujarat High Court refusing to quash proceedings against him, said that “When it comes to the freedom of speech and expression, it has to be preserved,”
What did apex court say?
“Some sensitivity has to be shown by the police before registering an FIR. They must at least read and understand (the article of the Constitution). Seventy-five years after the Constitution, the freedom of speech and expression has to be at least now understood by the police,” the bench said.
Gujarat Police registered an FIR against Pratapgarhi on January 3
The Gujarat Police had registered an FIR against Pratapgarhi on January 3 alleging that the lyrics of the background song in a video uploaded by him were provocative, detrimental to national unity and hurting religious feelings.
It was ultimately a poem: Apex Court
The apex court pointed out that it was ultimately a poem, was not against any particular community and in fact, promoted non-violence.
“There seems to be some issue with its translation. It is not against any religion. This poem indirectly says even if somebody indulges in violence, we will not indulge in violence. That is the message which the poem gives. It is not against any particular community,” Justice Oka said.
Apex court earlier stayed proceedings against Pratapgarhi
The apex court earlier on January 21 stayed the proceedings against the Congress MP for allegedly posting an edited video of the song in question and had issued notice to the Gujarat government and complainant Kishanbhai Deepakbhai Nanda on Pratapgarhi’s appeal.
The High Court had refused to quash the FIR against Pratapgarhi, saying further investigation is required into the matter and that the investigation is at a very nascent stage.
