‘Satire makes life more meaningful’: SC while quashing Gujarat police's poem FIR amid Kunal Kamra joke row

The Supreme Court on March 28 said that literature, including poetry and satire, makes human life ‘more meaningful.’ The top court observed this while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) registered against Congress Member of Parliament (MP) and poet Imran Pratapgarhi by Gujarat police over an Instagram post with a poem playing in the background.

The remarks by top court bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan come close on the heels of stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra being targeted for allegedly insulting Maharashtra deputy chief minister Eknath Shinde through a satirical poem in one of his recent shows. Twice summoned by the Mumbai police, Kamra's apparent comments on Shinde have landed him in trouble and triggered a huge political row.

The top court said on Friday that freedom of expression of thoughts and views is essential for leading a dignified life, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. “ Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution,” the top court said.

In its judgment, the bench underscored the importance of protecting the freedom of speech and expression and reminded the Courts and the Police of their duty to uphold the rights of persons expressing unpopular opinions, legal news agency LiveLaw reported.

The bench, allowing the petition filed by Pratapgarhi, observed that no offence was made in the case.

‘Even if a large number of persons dislike the views’

In the case's earlier hearing on March 3, the bench observed that the poem "ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” was actually propagating a message of non-violence. The Court had then also said that the police ought to have shown sensitivity before lodging the FIR.

Pratapgarhi, the Congress Rajya Sabha MP, is a noted Urdu poet.

“In a healthy democracy, the views of thoughts expressed by an individual or group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of view. Even if a large number of people dislike the views expressed by another, the right of a person to express their views must be respected and protected. Literature, including poetry, dramas, films, satire, and art, make the life of human beings more meaningful,” the court said on Friday.

What is the case about?

The FIR against Pratapgarhi was registered in City A-Division Police Station, Jamnagar, Gujarat, over an Instagram post featuring a video clip with the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno (Hey bloodthirsty ones listen to me)” running in the background.

The Gujarat High Court on January 17, 2025, refused to quash the FIR, emphasising the need for further investigation and citing Pratapgarhi's non-cooperation with the investigation process as a factor in its decision.

“The Courts are duty bound to uphold and enforce the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Sometimes we the judges may not like the spoken or written words, but still, it is our duty to uphold the fundamental rights under Article 19(1). We judges are also under an obligation to uphold the Constitution and the respective ideals,” the Supreme Court said in its observation on Friday.

‘Police bound to abide by Constitution’

The Supreme Court judgment on Friday also made observations for the police force as well. “The police officer must abide by the Constitution and respect the ideals. The philosophy of the constitutional ideals can be found in the Constitution itself.,” the court said.

"In the preamble, it is laid down that the people of India solemnly decided to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic and to secure for all its citizens liberty of thought and expression. Therefore. Liberty of thought and expression is one of the ideals of our constitution The police officers being citizens are bound to abide by the constitution and they are bound to uphold the right," it added, as per LiveLaw

The Court observed that for the offence under Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the spoken or written words will have to be considered based on standards of a reasonable strong-minded firm and courageous individual and not based on standards of people with weak and oscillating minds.

"The effect of spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of standards of the people who always have the sense of insecurity or those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position," the Court observed.

(With inputs from LiveLaw)