New Delhi: The poem posted online by Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi preached non-violence and love and there was nothing objectionable to initiate criminal proceedings against him, SCsaid on Friday.
“No prima facie case can be said to have been made out against the appellant qua the sections invoked. In such a case, registration of the FIR appears to be a very mechanical exercise and is a clear abuse of the process of law. In fact, registration of such FIR virtually borders on perversity,” Justice Abhay S Oka, who penned the verdict for the bench, said.
“The poem’s words do not bring about or promote disharmony or feelings of hatred or ill-will. It only seeks to challenge the injustice made by the ruler. It is impossible to say that the words used by the appellant disturb or are likely to disturb public tranquillity. It is ridiculous to say that the act of the appellant is intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. The poem only tells the rulers what the reaction will be if the fight for rights is met with injustice,” the bench said.
Setting standards for assessing the impact of spoken and written words, the bench said, “When an offence punishable under Section 196 of BNS is alleged, the effect of the spoken or written words will have to be considered based on standards of reasonable, firm and courageous individuals and not based on the standards of people with weak and oscillating minds. The effect of the spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of the standards of people who always have a sense of insecurity or of those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position.”
It added, “On Jan 26, 2025, our Constitution became 75 years old. One of the important fundamental rights conferred on the citizens of India is under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It is the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. This case shows that even after 75 years of the existence of our Constitution, the law enforcement machinery of state is either ignorant about this important fundamental right or does not care for this fundamental right.”