Opinion: Why do ruling parties fear jokes, poetry or sarcasm

Hyderabad: 1. In Telangana, the Congress government sent three journalists to jail for, what they say, using abusive language. However, the court granted them bail.

2. In Mumbai Police filed multiple criminal cases against comedian Kunal Kamra over the ‘traitor’ jibe against Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde. Mumbai’s MIDC police station on Monday registered a Zero FIR against Kamra for cracking an allegedly objectionable joke during a stand-up comedy show.

Kamra was alleged to have used derogatory comments, while the other is against people who vandalised the Unicontinental hotel where the shoot of Kamra’s comedy show took place. The party in power called it “distasteful and defamatory” remarks made by Kamra during his recent performance at the Habitat Comedy Club in Mumbai, where he performed a parody song targeting Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde.

As if it is not enough, the Maharashtra Legislative Council on 27 March moved a privilege notice against Kamra as per the IANS media report.

3. In Gujarat, on 10 February 10, the Gujarat Police over an FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi for allegedly posting an edited video of a provocative song. Agreeing with the Police, the Gujarat High Court also found a poem ‘defamatory’.

The poem landed in the apex court as the division bench of the SC rejected the order of the Gujarat High Court. Police and the High Court could not tolerate the song of a poem by Pratapgarhi, an MP. Because the police, government, and High Court did not like the criticism of the poem.

The bench said: "It's ultimately a poem. It is not against any religion. This poem indirectly says that even if somebody indulges in violence, we will not indulge in violence. That's the message that the poem gives. It is not against any particular community".

It was a 46-second video clip, uploaded by Mr. Pratapgarhi on X, which showed flower petals being showered at him as he walked, waving his hands with a background song, the lyrics of which the FIR alleged were provocative, detrimental to national unity, and hurting religious feelings.

Mr. Pratapgarhi said the FIR was used as a tool to harass him and was lodged with "malicious intent and mala fide motives". A news report says: Claiming his social media post did not in any way provoke enmity between groups and no case was made out, Mr. Pratapgarhi said he was being implicated due to his association with Congress.

4. Now it has to reach the Supreme Court. The apex court has already delivered a judgment to explain what a poem, sarcasm, freedom of speech and expression, and fundamental rights are guaranteed by the Constitution of India, which most of the governments do not respect. The problem is that all these governments knew that these comments were well within the constitutional limits. However, these ‘accused’ wanted to test their economic ability and take up the high cost of litigation and travel to Delhi.

5. See how the Government and its advocates argue, describing sadakchaap!!! Unfortunately, Solicitor General Mehta found the poem at best `sadakchaap' (cheap). He had objected to the comparison with Mahatma Gandhi.

When Supreme Court restores the poem and justice

"Free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or groups of individuals is an integral part of a healthy, civilized society. Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In a healthy democracy, the views or thoughts expressed by an individual or group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of view" – Supreme Court in its verdict on March 28, 2025.

The Supreme Court supported the right to express and use disagreement, dissent, abuse, sarcasm, humour, art, and even culture. Justice Oka, who authored the judgment with inputs from Justice Bhuyan, said: “The state and the police should not play ball to victimize individual opinions on behalf of those crippled by insecurity and view criticism as a threat to their power and position.’

When the government could not find the difference between a poem and a cheap song, and took it to the Supreme Court, which had to protect freedom of speech and expression. This reflects the attitude of the Government of India and the State of Gujarat. An MP has to fight the case on his poem. Is this the status of our fundamental right? What a shame!

The Supreme Court Bench of Justices A.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan wrote in its verdict on 28 March 2025.

“Seventy-five years into our Republic, we cannot be seen to be so shaky on our fundamentals that a mere recital of a poem, or for that matter, any form of art or entertainment, such as stand-up comedy, can be alleged to lead to animosity or hatred amongst different communities. Subscribing to such a view would stifle all legitimate expressions of view in the public domain, which is so fundamental to a free society.”

The media reported on 28 March 2025 that the apex court said the fundamental right to free speech through poetry, theatre, stand-up comedy, and satire must be cherished even as it quashed a criminal case registered by the Gujarat Police accusing Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi of inciting discord through his poem on “suffering injustice with love”.

The top court said free speech was an integral part of a healthy and civilised society. A person’s views cannot be silenced merely because the majority does not like the sound of them. The law enforcement authorities and courts must employ the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm, and courageous minds, and not weak and vacillating ones who scent danger in every hostile point of view, before initiating criminal action against freedom of expression. The Court said:

“Acceptance of the freedom to express a view which may not accord with the mainstream is are cardinal value. A society wedded to the rule of law cannot trample upon the rights of those who assert views which may be regarded as unpopular or contrary to the views shared by the majority. Right of the playwright, the artist, the writer, and of the poet will be reduced to husk if the freedom to portray a message, whether it be in canvas, prose, or verse, is to depend upon the popular perception of the acceptability of that message”.

Author: Dr Madabhushi Sridhar Acharyulu, LLD, MCJ, Professor, Mahindra University, Hyderabad

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of NewsMeter