The Supreme Court said on Monday that freedom of speech and expression must be understood by the police “at least now” after 75 years of the Constitution, Live Law reported.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan made the remark while hearing a petition filed by Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi seeking to quash a case registered against him by the Gujarat Police over a poem he posted on social media.

The bench reserved its judgement on the petition.

Pratapgarhi is known for his protest poetry that details the Muslim experience and identity in India and other parts of the world.

On January 3, the Rajya Sabha MP was booked by the Jamnagar Police in Gujarat on charges of promoting enmity between groups based on religion and race, making statements harmful to national integration and insulting religious groups by posting the poem along with a video, which was widely shared on social media.

On Monday, the bench said that the poem propagated a message of non-violence.

“It has nothing to do with religion, this has nothing to do with any anti-national activity,” Oka said. “Police has shown lack of sensitivity.”

In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Gujarat government, said that some people may have understood the meaning of the poem differently.

“This is the problem,” Oka was quoted as having replied. “Now nobody has any respect for creativity. If you read it [poem] plainly, it says that even if you suffer injustice, you suffer it with love.”

The bench noted that the police should have shown sensitivity.

“They must at least read and understand,” it said. “75 years after the existence of the Constitution, freedom of speech and expression has to be at least now understood by the police.”

Lawyer Kapil Sibal, representing Pratapgarhi, urged the bench to review and make observations about the judgement issued by the Gujarat High Court in the matter.

On January 17, the Gujarat High Court refused to quash the first information report citing the need for further investigation and Pratapgarhi’s alleged non-cooperation with the police. The High Court said that the poem’s content could disturb social harmony, noting that citizens, particularly MPs, must act in ways that preserve communal and social peace.

“Look at what the High Court judges say,” Sibal told the bench on Monday. “Your lordships must say something on that.”

The High Court also ought to have shown sensitivity, he added.

“I have been fair to the court but let’s not travel to making comments against the High Court,” Mehta said in response. “My learned friend says where is the country heading...”

Sibal said: “The Supreme Court criticises many judgements. What is wrong with that?”

On February 10 too, the Supreme Court had criticised the police for filing the FIR against Pratapgarhi.

It had also noted that the poem was not against any particular community.

“Please apply your mind to the poem,” Oka had told the police. “After all, creativity is also important.”

The Supreme Court had earlier granted interim relief to Pratapgarhi, staying all further actions related to the FIR.