New Delhi: Poetry and plays, films, films, stand-up comedy, satire and arts make literature, life more meaningful, the Supreme Court on Friday saw a “stimulating” poem posted on social media against Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgagari.
In the judgment of his 54-page landmark, Justice Abhay S. A bench of Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan also said that “75 years in our Republic, we cannot be seen so unstable on our basic principles that about a poem, or as art or entertainment for that case, such as stand-up comedy, resentment can lead to the middle.”
Subscribing to such an approach, the order further said, “To see all legitimate expressions in the public domain which is very fundamental for a free society”.
Show full article
The ruling Kunal comes in view of Kamra controversy, in which standup comedian Facing heat His jokes on Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde.
The Supreme Court also said on Friday that in cases of cognitive offenses, which are related to freedom of speech or written or spoken word, it is always “suitable for initial investigation to check the material” and to see if a case exists, before proceeding with a formal legal action against the accused.
This, in turn, will ensure that the fundamental rights are preserved under Article 19 of the Constitution, it said.
In January, Congress MP Pratapgari was booked by the police after a mass marriage program in Jamnagar, Gujarat to post a 46-second video and poetry on social media, under Section 196 and 197 of the Indian Joint Code (BNS), which is related to promoting enmity between different groups and making statements for national implications.
The Gujarat High Court on January 17 rejected the petition of Pratapgagari, which contacted the Supreme Court, after which he contacted the Supreme Court, who has now given relief to him, seeing that Urdu poetry has nothing to do with any religion, community, region or race.
The court said, “From any part of the imagination, the material does not affect national integration,” saying that the poem does not endanger India’s sovereignty, unity, integrity or security.
Court observation
In its Friday judgment, the court made the following observation as it rejected the FIR against the MP.
First, it attracted attention to Section 173 (3) of BNS, which provides that the in -charge of a police station should first conduct an initial inquiry, when he receives a cognitive crime complaint, is punishable for three to seven years. This inquiry, which is before the registration of an FIR, should be subject to permission from the best of the charge.
Next, if the officer reaches the conclusion that a prima facie case exists, an FIR must be registered immediately, and they must proceed to investigate the case. But, if he thinks that a prima facie case has not been made to move forward, he should immediately inform the informer/complainant so that he can take advantage of proper measures, the court said.
Similarly, in cases where crime belongs to Article 19, or roughly spoken or related to written words, “initial investigation is always appropriate” to check the material “and to see if a case against the accused is present, the court advised the court.
Secondly, it said that police officers should follow the constitution and its ideals. “Article 19 (1) (A) provides a fundamental right for speech and freedom of expression on all citizens. Police machinery is a part of the state within the meaning of Article 12. Also, as a police officer, citizen, bound to follow the constitution,” said this.
Third, when a crime under Section 196 of BNS is allegedly allegedly punishable, the impact of spoken or written words will be considered based on the standards of “proper, strong-minded, firm and courageous persons” and not based on the standards of weak and oscillations.
The impact of spoken or written words can be judged on the basis of the standards of those who always have insecurity or for those who always see criticism as a threat to their strength or status, the court described the detailed by the court.
Finally, the court stated that it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed under Article 21, without the freedom of expression of ideas and ideas.
“In a healthy democracy, the ideas, ideas or ideas expressed by a person or a group of individuals should be counted by expressing another attitude,” given, given, given that even though a large number of people dislike the ideas expressed by the other, the right to express those ideas should be protected.
Criticizing the law enforcement agencies and judiciary for their failure to understand the right of free speech, the court said that proper restrictions on free speech should be appropriate and cannot be imaginary or oppressive.
The decision serves as a reminder to the courts and police about its constitutional duty to maintain and implement rights.
Ideas should be preserved, even if the judges do not like them. “We are also under a responsibility to maintain the constitution, the judge,” said the apex court.
It further said that when police and executive fails to maintain free speech, it is the duty of the courts.
,There is no other institution that can maintain the fundamental rights of citizens. The courts, especially constitutional courts, must be at the forefront to protect the fundamental rights of citizens, ”claimed.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)