Freedom of Speech: Supreme Court’s Strong Stand on Police After 75 Years of the Constitution

Freedom of speech and expression is a cornerstone of democracy, enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. However, its interpretation by law enforcement agencies has often led to controversies and legal battles.

On March 4, 2025, the Supreme Court of India made a landmark observation, emphasizing that police officers must now, after 75 years of the Constitution, truly understand the essence of free speech. This remark came during a hearing on Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi’s plea to quash an FIR lodged against him for allegedly sharing a provocative song.

The Court’s statement highlights a recurring issue in India—the arbitrary use of legal provisions to suppress voices under the pretext of maintaining public order.

Supreme Court’s Observation on Freedom of Speech

During the hearing, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta made a significant statement:

“After 75 years of the Constitution, the police must now understand what freedom of speech truly means.”

This comment underscores the judiciary’s concern over how law enforcement agencies misinterpret and misuse laws to target individuals for their speech.

Why This Statement Matters?

• It signals the Supreme Court’s strong stand on protecting free speech.
• It serves as a warning against police overreach in suppressing dissent.
• It highlights the need for legal education and reform within the police force.

Case Background: Imran Pratapgarhi’s FIR

Who is Imran Pratapgarhi?

• A Congress MP and well-known poet.
• Active on social media and known for his political views.
• Accused of sharing a provocative song that allegedly incited unrest.

Why Was the FIR Filed?

• The Uttar Pradesh police registered an FIR against Pratapgarhi, alleging that the song he shared contained inflammatory content.
• His legal team argued that the song was not intended to incite violence and that his freedom of speech was being curtailed unjustly.

The Supreme Court’s response suggested that law enforcement authorities need to differentiate between genuine incitement and political expression.

Legal Framework: Freedom of Speech vs. Restrictions

What the Constitution Says

• Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
• Article 19(2): Allows reasonable restrictions on speech in cases of:
  • Security of the state
  • Public order
  • Decency and morality
  • Defamation
  • Incitement to an offense

What Past Court Rulings Say

The Supreme Court has consistently upheld freedom of speech in various cases:

1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
   • Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for restricting online speech arbitrarily.
   • Established that only speech that incites imminent violence can be punished.
2. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)
   • Ruled that criticism of the government does not amount to sedition unless it incites violence.
3. Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014)
   • Held that hate speech must be judged based on its potential to incite violence.

The Court’s recent observation in Pratapgarhi’s case aligns with these rulings, emphasizing that not all provocative speech is unlawful.

Misuse of Laws Against Free Speech in India

India has seen multiple instances where police action against free speech has been controversial. Some recent cases include:

1. Munawar Faruqui’s Arrest (2021)
   • The comedian was arrested for a joke he had not even performed.
   • The police claimed the joke was offensive and could incite unrest.
2. FIRs Against Journalists and Activists
   • Several journalists have faced FIRs for reporting on government policies, raising concerns about press freedom.
3. Social Media Censorship
   • Many individuals have been booked for political posts, reflecting a trend of digital suppression of dissent.

The Pratapgarhi case adds to this list, making the Supreme Court’s observation even more crucial.

Implications of the Supreme Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court’s strong stance is expected to:

✅ Prevent arbitrary arrests based on vague speech-related offenses.
✅ Encourage police training on constitutional rights and free speech.
✅ Discourage misuse of FIRs for political or ideological reasons.
✅ Set a legal precedent for future cases related to speech offenses.

What Can Citizens Do?

If you are facing legal action for expressing your views, here’s what you can do:

1. Know Your Rights
   • Read Article 19 of the Constitution to understand your freedom of speech protections.
2. Seek Legal Assistance
   • If you receive a legal notice, consult a lawyer immediately.
3. Report Unjust Actions
   • If you believe the police are misusing laws, document the case and raise awareness.
4. Use Legal Precedents
   • Cite past Supreme Court rulings (like Shreya Singhal case) to defend your speech rights.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s statement is a strong message to law enforcement agencies: Free speech is a constitutional right that must not be misinterpreted or misused.

As India progresses, the judiciary must continue to uphold democratic values and protect individuals from legal overreach. The verdict in Imran Pratapgarhi’s case will be a significant milestone in defining the future of free speech in India.