Guwahati: The Supreme Court of India on Friday stated that police officers should conduct a preliminary inquiry of the individual before registering a First Information Report (FIR) to protect the freedom of expression of the individual.
The top court also stated that the police have a duty to abide by the Constitution and uphold its principles and values.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
According to LiveLaw, the top court stated that referring to Article 51A(a), which mandates citizens to abide by the Constitution and respect its institutions, the Court observed that officers must uphold the fundamental rights of individuals, particularly the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made the observations while quashing an FIR registered by the Gujarat Police against Congress Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi for his Instagram post featuring a video clip with the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” in the background.
The case arose from an FIR registered in Jamnagar, Gujarat, against Pratapgarhi under Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, and 57 of the BNS.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
It stated that whenever police received information about alleged offenses under Sections 196, 197, 299, or 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), a police officer must read or hear the words in question to determine whether the information discloses a cognizable offense.
The Court recommended that the State should organize large-scale training programs to ensure police officers properly understand and the state should informed about their responsibilities and duties as defined by the Constitution.
The Court observed that, except for Section 57, all the other alleged offences were punishable by imprisonment of less than seven years. Moreover, Section 57 was inapplicable to the case, the Court stated. Therefore, the police officer had the discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) of the BNSS the court said, noting that the officer chose not to exercise this option.
“When a police officer declines to conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) in such cases, it not only undermines the intent of the provision but also violates the State’s obligation to protect constitutional freedoms” the court noted.
The Court stated that, even while fulfilling the offense obligation under Section 173(1) of the BNSS to register an FIR if a cognizable offence is disclosed, police officers must be mindful of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and the exceptions outlined in Article 19(2).
The Court further observed that while Article 19(2) allows certain laws to limit the right to free speech, those laws cannot overshadow the primary right enshrined in Article 19(1)(a).
The authorities must protect the substantive right to free expression unless the restrictions meet the criteria of reasonableness as laid down under Article 19(2), the top court added.