14 July 2025 | New Delhi

 

In a sharply worded session that spotlighted the thin line between satire and defamation, the Supreme Court of India on Monday compelled Indore-based cartoonist Hemant Malviya to delete a controversial post aimed at Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the RSS, after the bench expressed serious concern over the tone and content of his public commentary.

 

A two-judge bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar was hearing Malviya’s special leave petition seeking protection from arrest after the Madhya Pradesh High Court denied him anticipatory bail earlier this month.

 

 

The controversy stems from a political cartoon originally shared in 2021, where Malviya lampooned early vaccine claims with a caricature that later resurfaced alongside inflammatory comments on social media in 2025. Malviya allegedly endorsed the re-post, prompting police to register a case under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS) and the Information Technology Act, 2000.

 

 

“This isn’t freedom of expression. There is a responsibility that comes with the power to influence minds,” remarked Justice Dhulia, after reviewing the post in question.

 

Faced with clear disapproval from the bench, Malviya’s counsel, Vrinda Grover, informed the Court that her client had already taken steps to delete the post and would issue a clarification distancing himself from the objectionable content.

 

 

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while dismissing Malviya’s anticipatory bail plea earlier this month, observed that his social media conduct was not “mere artistic expression” but appeared deliberately provocative, potentially breaching public order. The Court emphasized the need for custodial interrogation, triggering Malviya’s urgent plea to the apex court.

 

In the Supreme Court, the State opposed bail again, arguing that the repost had sparked communal unease and could not be brushed off as innocent satire.

 

Key Legal Points Raised

• Freedom of Speech vs. Hate Speech: Where is the line drawn in politically sensitive satire?

• Artist’s Liability for Endorsed Content: Does sharing or endorsing others’ inflammatory content attract criminal liability?

• Reputation of Constitutional Offices: Should courts adopt a stricter lens when alleged defamation targets national leaders?

 

Today’s exchange suggests the Supreme Court is unwilling to shield speech that may incite social disharmony under the guise of humour or dissent—especially when aimed at figures holding constitutional offices.