We cannot be so shaky on our fundamentals that artistic expression is seen as a threat: SC upholds free speech while quashing FIR against MP, Read Judgment

"Only where the written or spoken words have the tendency of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order or affecting public tranquillity, the law needs to step in," declared the Supreme Court while addressing a case concerning a poem recited in a social media video by a Rajya Sabha Member. The case arose from allegations that the poem incited enmity and hurt religious and social sentiments, leading to the registration of an FIR under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The appellant sought to quash the FIR, arguing that the poem advocated non-violence and the right to protest. However, the High Court refused to intervene at the initial stage of the investigation, prompting an appeal before the Supreme Court.

The case revolves around a video posted on social media by the appellant, a Rajya Sabha Member, containing the recitation of a poem in the background. A complaint was filed against the appellant, alleging that the poem’s content incited enmity between communities and hurt religious and social sentiments. An FIR was registered under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The appellant moved the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the FIR, asserting that the poem was a message of love and non-violence and that its authorship remained uncertain between two well-known poets. However, the High Court refused to interfere, citing the early stage of the investigation and relying on the Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra ruling. The matter then proceeded to appeal.

The appellant argued that the FIR was unjustified, as the poem, on its plain reading, neither incited violence nor promoted enmity between communities. Instead, it conveyed a message of sacrifice for rights and truth, advocating non-violence. The appellant contended that the mere act of posting the video on social media, which received mixed reactions, could not be construed as causing social disharmony. It was further asserted that the FIR violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The appellant criticized the insensitivity of the police and the High Court’s failure to recognize the true intent of the poem.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The Solicitor General, appearing for the State, took a neutral stance, leaving the decision to the Court but countered the appellant’s claim regarding the poem’s authorship, stating that it was baseless. He justified the police’s actions, emphasizing their obligation to register an FIR in response to the complaint. The High Court’s decision to reject the appellant’s plea was defended as being in accordance with the law, and the criticism of the Court’s approach was deemed unfounded.

The 2nd respondent (complainant) did not appear before the Court despite proper service of notice.

The Court examined the poem and found that it does not refer to any religion, community, region, or race. It categorically stated: “By no stretch of imagination, the contents affect national integration; it does not jeopardise the sovereignty, unity, integrity or security of India.” Instead, the poem advocates non-violence and the willingness to sacrifice for rights.

Addressing the FIR, the Court held: “We fail to understand how the statements therein are detrimental to national unity and how the statements will affect national unity,” adding that “On its plain reading, the poem does not purport to affect anyone’s religious feelings.”

Regarding Section 196 of the BNS, the Court ruled that “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.” Similarly, under Section 197, it observed: “The poem does not make or publish any imputation and is not concerned with any religious, racial, language, regional group, caste, or community.”

Dismissing allegations under Section 299 as “ridiculous,” it further stated: “The poem only tells the rulers what the reaction will be if the fight for rights is met with injustice.” The Court also rejected charges under Section 57, stating: “We fail to understand, even if it is assumed that the appellant has committed some offence, how he has abetted the commission of an offence by the public generally or by any number or class of persons exceeding ten.”

The Court reiterated that "it is mandatory to register the FIR if information received discloses the commission of a cognizable offence." However, it clarified that under Section 173(3) of the BNSS, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted for offences punishable by imprisonment between three and seven years to “prevent the registration of FIRs in frivolous cases.” It explained that “reading of written words, or hearing spoken words will be necessary to determine whether the contents make out a case of the commission of a cognizable offence,” but this does not amount to a preliminary inquiry.

Emphasizing the importance of free speech, the Court observed: "Only where the written or spoken words have the tendency of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order or affecting public tranquillity, the law needs to step in." It held that describing August 5 as a "Black Day" is an "expression of protest and anguish," not a punishable offence.

Warning against criminalizing dissent, it stated: “Democracy, which is an essential feature of the Constitution of India, will not survive” if every criticism is treated as an offence. Criticizing the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court held that the FIR’s registration was “a very mechanical exercise and... a clear abuse of the process of law,” adding that it “virtually borders on perversity.”

The Court stressed that constitutional courts must protect fundamental rights, declaring: “The Courts must not be seen to regulate or stifle the freedom of speech and expression” but must “thwart any attempt to undermine the Constitution and the constitutional values.” Citing Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, it reiterated that “when it comes to democracy, liberty of thought and expression is a cardinal value that is of paramount significance.”

Rejecting the idea that artistic expression can incite hatred, it warned: "75 years into our republic, we cannot be seen to be so shaky on our fundamentals that mere recital of a poem or, for that matter, any form of art or entertainment, such as stand-up comedy, can be alleged to lead to animosity or hatred."

The impugned order was deemed fit to be set aside. Accordingly, it was quashed and set aside. FIR No. 11202008250014 of 2025, registered with City A-Division Police Station, Jamnagar, along with all further proceedings based on it, was also quashed and set aside. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.

Read Judgment @latestlaws.com, click here

Picture Source :