On March 28, 2025<\/strong>, the Supreme Court of India quashed an FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi<\/strong>, registered by Gujarat Police for his Instagram post featuring the poem \u201cAe khoon ke pyase baat suno\u201d<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan<\/strong> observed that the post did not constitute any criminal offence, despite public outrage. The Court strongly reinforced that freedom of speech and expression is a cornerstone of dignified life under Article 21<\/strong>, and that courts must protect this right even when they personally disagree with the content.<\/p>\n The Court also reminded the police that registering FIRs for expression must be based on the “strong-minded, courageous citizen” test<\/strong>, not on fragile sensibilities or political discomfort.<\/p>\n On July 5, 2025<\/strong>, the Andhra Pradesh High Court issued a landmark circular<\/strong> to all judicial magistrates:<\/p>\n Strict compliance with Arnesh Kumar guidelines (2014)<\/strong> is mandatory before remanding anyone, especially for social media posts.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n The Court specifically invoked the Imran Pratapgarhi ruling<\/strong>, warning magistrates that unnecessary remands or FIRs in free speech cases will attract contempt of court and departmental action<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Magistrates must check: The recent Ranveer Allahbadia (“BeerBiceps”) and Samay Raina controversy<\/strong> over their edgy podcast episode resulted in multiple FIRs across states. The Supreme Court granted interim protection from arrest<\/strong>, but unfortunately, the Court\u2019s tone was more moralistic than principled<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The judges labelled the content \u201cfilthy,\u201d \u201cdisgusting,\u201d and \u201cdepraved\u201d<\/p>\n<\/li>\n The Court asked for new content regulation frameworks<\/strong> for digital creators<\/p>\n<\/li>\n No FIRs to be registered further<\/strong>, but the right to offend was not robustly defended<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n Creators were asked to surrender passports and tone down their content<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n In contrast to the Pratapgarhi judgment<\/strong>, here the Court leaned into moral policing<\/strong>, which raises concerns about consistency in protecting free speech<\/strong>.<\/p>\n As Advocate Tarun Gaur<\/strong>, a criminal lawyer in Delhi<\/strong>, I say this loud and clear:<\/p>\n Liberty is not a privilege; it is a right.<\/strong> Courts must resist the temptation to act as moral gatekeepers<\/strong>. They are constitutionally obligated to protect citizens\u2019 liberty first, personal distaste second<\/strong>. When we start attaching conditions to speech\u2014\u201cspeak freely, but only if we like it\u201d\u2014we are no longer defending freedom; we are sanitizing dissent.<\/p>\n In my practice as an Advocate in Dwarka<\/strong> and as someone who fights for civil liberties, I have seen firsthand how frivolous FIRs are used as tools of harassment<\/strong>. When police overreach becomes the norm, Constitutional Courts must step in unapologetically<\/strong>.<\/p>\n I firmly believe that liberty is not to be curtailed easily<\/strong>, especially in cases involving free speech, digital expression, satire, or commentary<\/strong>. Whether it\u2019s a poem, a joke, a podcast, or a meme, the law must stand on the side of expression, not censorship.<\/strong><\/p>\n If we continue to blur the lines between legal accountability and moral policing<\/strong>, India risks sliding into a “chilling effect” on speech<\/strong>. Every citizen\u2014whether a comedian, poet, podcaster, or politician<\/strong>\u2014should feel safe to speak without the looming threat of jail.<\/p>\n As someone who practices in white collar crime, cyber law, and free speech cases<\/strong>, I strongly advocate for a robust, fearless defence of liberty<\/strong>. Courts must protect rights, not feelings<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Advocate Tarun Gaur (All India Rank 1) <\/strong><\/p>\n Regular commentator on constitutional rights<\/strong> and liberty jurisprudence.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \ud83d\udd0d Recent Developments in Free Speech Jurisprudence 1\ufe0f\u20e3 Supreme Court Quashes Imran Pratapgarhi FIR On March 28, 2025, the Supreme […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1186,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"default","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"set","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,14,23],"tags":[71,308,118,302,309,304,303,310,307,305,306],"class_list":["post-1185","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-criminal-law","category-information-technology-laws","category-judgment-analysis","tag-advocate-tarun-gaur","tag-article-19-rights","tag-best-advocate-in-dwarka","tag-criminal-lawyer-in-delhi","tag-cyber-crime-defence-lawyer","tag-fir-quashing-lawyer","tag-free-speech-law-india","tag-liberty-protection-law-india","tag-social-media-fir-law","tag-supreme-court-on-freedom-of-expression","tag-white-collar-crime-expert"],"yoast_head":"\n
\n2\ufe0f\u20e3 Andhra Pradesh High Court\u2019s Directive to Magistrates<\/h4>\n
\n
\u2705 Whether multiple offences are made out
\u2705 Whether custody is genuinely required
\u2705 Whether the accused may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n\u2696\ufe0f What About the Ranveer Allahbadia & Samay Raina Case?<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
\n\ud83d\udca5 My Fierce Take\u2014Liberty Must Be Non-Negotiable<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Especially when the alleged offence stems from speech, satire, or art, freedom must be the default\u2014not the exception<\/strong>.<\/p>\n
\n\ud83c\udfdb\ufe0f Why This Matters<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n\u270d\ufe0f About the Author<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n