The Supreme Court on Monday sharply criticised Indore-based cartoonist Hemant Malviya for sharing a Facebook post containing a caricature of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and a figure in RSS uniform, calling his conduct “inflammatory” and “immature”. The bench refused to grant immediate anticipatory bail and directed that Malviya delete the post and issue a clarification.
A bench consisting of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Aravind Kumar was hearing Malviya’s special leave petition challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order dated July 3, 2025, which had denied him anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered in Indore.
The original cartoon, dated 6 January 2021, was a satirical comment on vaccine safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. It showed a caricature of Prime Minister Modi injecting a vaccine into a person wearing the RSS uniform, whose shorts were pulled down. In May 2025, another Facebook user reposted the cartoon with critical remarks relating to the central government’s decision to conduct a caste census. Malviya reshared that post and appeared to endorse the comments.
An FIR was filed on 21 May 2025 at an Indore police station under Sections 196, 299, 302, 352, and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The complainant, identifying himself as a member of the RSS and the Hindu community, alleged that the post was insulting to the RSS, hurt religious sentiments, and was aimed at inciting violence.
Malviya’s initial plea for anticipatory bail was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge in Indore on 24 May 2025. The Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected his second bail plea on 3 July, holding that Malviya had “crossed the limits of free speech”. The High Court also stated that custodial interrogation was necessary, and that the content included “derogatory lines involving Lord Shiva”, which Malviya had endorsed.
In his plea before the Supreme Court, Malviya argued that the cartoon had been in the public domain since 2021 and had not caused any law and order issue until it was recently revived by someone else. His counsel, Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover, told the court that although the post might be in “poor taste”, it did not amount to a criminal offence.
Grover said that Malviya was over 50 years old, had no prior criminal record, and had already agreed to delete the post. She argued that there was no justification for custodial interrogation and invoked the safeguards laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, Section 41-A of the CrPC, and Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat.
Justice Dhulia responded, “Still no maturity. We agree it is inflammatory,” while pointing out that age does not justify behaviour that incites public unrest. He also remarked, “Comedians, cartoonists etc. must be mindful of their conduct.” The court pressed Grover on whether her client was willing to delete the post, to which she responded affirmatively and said Malviya would also make a statement distancing himself from the objectionable remarks.
Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Madhya Pradesh government, opposed any interim protection. He argued that if the post was offensive, then it constituted an offence. He added that such content had the potential to create disharmony and disturb public order, stating, “All over the country, such things are triggering incidents.”
The Supreme Court posted the matter for further hearing on Tuesday, 15 July 2025. No interim relief was granted, and Malviya has been directed to delete the post and clarify that he does not endorse the offensive comments.
Malviya’s petition contends that the FIR was filed with malicious intent to penalise him for exercising free speech. It argues that reposting publicly available content does not justify custodial interrogation and that none of the charges attract a punishment exceeding seven years.
The court will take up the matter again on Tuesday.
