New Delhi: Amid row over comedian Kunal Kamra’s Eknath Shinde joke, the Supreme Court on Friday made some observations regarding freedom of speech while quashing an FIR lodged by Gujarat Police against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi in ‘provocative’ song case.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasised that protecting citizens’ fundamental rights is the court’s duty, particularly when it comes to freedom of speech and expression.’
“Even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of person to express the views must be respected and protected. Literature, including poetry, drama, films, satire and art, make the life of human beings more meaningful,” the bench said.
Here are five points on what the top court said today:
The Court observed that the free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or a group of individuals is an integral part of a healthy, civilised society, reported the Bar and Bench. “Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution,” it added.
Moreover, the court said literature, including poetry, dramas, films, stage shows, satire and art make the life of human beings more meaningful.
In a healthy democracy, the court observed that views, opinions or thoughts expressed by an individual or a group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of view. The court also stated that even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of that person to express the views must be respected and protected.
The Court also laid down when Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)—a provision that penalises actions or speech that promote disharmony, enmity, or hatred between people— can be invoked. The top court followed a decision of the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in this regard.
“When an offence punishable under Section 196 of BNS is alleged, the effect of spoken or written words will have to be considered based on the standards of reasonable, strong-minded , firm and courageous individuals and not based on standards of people with weak and oscillating minds. The effect of spoke or written words cannot be judged on the basis of standards of people who always have a sense of insecurity or those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position,” it said.
The courts are duty-bound to uphold and enforce the rights guaranteed under Constitution of India, Justice Oka said while pronouncing the decision, reported the Bar and Bench. “We, judges, are also under an obligation to uphold the Constitution,” the Court said.
“There is no other institution which can uphold the fundamental rights of the citizens. The Courts, particularly the Constitutional Courts, must be at the forefront to zealously protect the fundamental rights of the citizens…It is the bounden duty of the courts to ensure that the Constitution and ideals of the Constitutions are not trampled upon. Endeavor of the courts should always be to protect and promote the fundamental rights including the freedom of speech and expression which is one of the most cherished rights of citizens in a liberal constitutional democracy,” the bench observed.
The Court also emphasized that police officers must abide by the Constitution as they are bound to uphold the rights of people.
Know the Pratapgarhi case
The above observations were made by the top court with regards to the Pratapgarhi case. Pratapgarhi, the national chairman of Congress’ minority cell, had challenged the January 17 order of the Gujarat high court, which dismissed his petition seeking to quash an FIR against him.
On January 3, Pratapgarhi was booked for allegedly sharing a provocative song in connection with a mass marriage function that he attended in Jamnagar.
