Blitz Bureau
THE Supreme Court on July 15 objected to a social media post of a cartoonist from Madhya Pradesh, which depicted Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in an “undignified manner”, reported IANS.
The caricature, showing an RSS figure with khaki shorts pulled down and the Prime Minister administering an injection to the exposed figure, was accompanied by a provocative caption referencing “derogatory lines involving Lord Shiva” and the “caste census”.
In the course of hearing, a Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar termed the conduct of cartoonist Hemant Malviya “inflammatory” and “immature.” The Bench was hearing an anticipatory bail plea of the cartoonist, who was booked by the MP Police for allegedly sharing “indecent” social media posts.
The apex court asked advocate Vrinda Grover, who appeared on Malviya’s behalf, to take instructions if he was willing to delete his post. In response, Grover submitted that the petitioner was willing to take down the controversial post and to make a statement that he was not endorsing the objectionable comments. At this, the Justice Bench orally remarked, “The comedians, cartoonists, etc., look at their conduct!”
When Grover pressed for interim protection from arrest, the apex court refused to pass any order but listed the matter for hearing on Tuesday. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Natraj, appearing on behalf of the Madhya Pradesh Government, said that the controversial post was creating social disharmony and all over the country, such things are happening and triggering the breakdown of law and order.
Earlier, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had denied the relief to Malviya, observing that such content had the potential to disrupt social harmony and he had “clearly overstepped the threshold of freedom of speech and expression”. In its order, issued on July 3, a single-judge Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar said that the content, along with Malviya’s endorsement and his invitation for others to modify and share the cartoon, was not in good taste and constituted a deliberate act meant to outrage sentiments.
The Bench of Justice Abhyankar emphasised that the freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution does not extend to deliberate acts that insult religion or promote discord. It concluded that the caricature, along with Malviya’s public endorsement, crossed the bounds of lawful satire and warranted serious legal consequences.
