Freedom of expression vs street cred…, Imran Pratapgarhi’s petition and Sibal-government face to face in SC

The Supreme Court on Monday said that the country had adopted the Constitution 75 years ago. After so many years have passed, at least now the police should understand freedom of expression.

What angered the Supreme Court?

The court reserved its decision on the petition of Congress MP and National President of the party’s Minority Cell Imran Pratapgarhi in which he had sought quashing of the FIR registered against him for allegedly sharing an inflammatory song.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjwal Bhuyan underlined the importance of protecting the fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(A) of the Constitution.

Justice Oka said, when it comes to freedom of expression, it should be protected. The police should show some sensitivity before registering an FIR. They must at least read and understand the article of the Constitution. After 75 years of adoption of the Constitution, at least now the police should understand freedom of expression.

Question on the poem ‘Ae Khoon Ke Pyaase Baat Suno’

It is worth noting that Pratapgarhi had participated in a mass marriage ceremony organized in Jamnagar, Gujarat. During this, an FIR was registered against him on January 3 for allegedly sharing provocative songs.

How is this poem against a particular community?

Justice Oka said that it was actually a poem in which it is said to promote non-violence. There seems to be some problem in its translation. It is not against any religion. This poem indirectly says that even if someone is involved in violence, we will not indulge in violence. This is the message the poem gives. It is not against any particular community.

Comparison with ‘sadak chap’ poem

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of Gujarat Police, said that it was a “sadak chap” poem and it cannot be considered related to a famous poet and writer like Faiz Ahmed Faiz.

He said, “It was the video message of the MP that caused the problem.” Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the MP, said that it was not Imran Pratapgarhi who shared the video message but his team.

On January 21, the Supreme Court had stayed the proceedings against Pratapgarhi for allegedly posting an edited video of a provocative song and issued notice to the Gujarat government and complainant Kishanbhai Deepakbhai Nanda on his appeal.

Imran Pratapgarhi vs State of Gujarat

The Congress leader challenged the January 17 order of the Gujarat High Court, which dismissed his plea to quash the FIR filed against him, saying the investigation was at a very preliminary stage. Pratapgarhi was booked for an alleged provocative song during a mass marriage ceremony in Jamnagar, Gujarat on January 3.

Full timeline of the case against Imran Pratapgarhi

• Imran Pratapgarhi is accused of posting an inflammatory song on social media.
• It was disruptive to national unity and hurt religious sentiments.
• The case was registered in Jamnagar, Gujarat.
• An FIR was lodged against Imran Pratapgarhi under sections 196 and 197 of the Indian Penal Code.
• Imran Pratapgarhi had filed a petition in the Supreme Court in which he had demanded the cancellation of the case.
  The Supreme Court heard the case and reserved the decision.