New Delhi, July 11, 2025 —

Cartoonist Hemant Malviya, facing arrest over a satirical cartoon allegedly depicting Prime Minister Narendra Modi and a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) volunteer in a derogatory light, has moved the Supreme Court seeking anticipatory bail after his plea was rejected by the Madhya Pradesh High Court earlier this month.

 

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear his petition on July 14, a date seen as critical by free speech advocates who claim the case is a test of artistic liberty under India’s new criminal law regime.

 

 

The case stems from a cartoon that Malviya posted on social media in May 2025, which was originally created during the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. The image satirized the government’s communication around vaccine safety, referencing the phrase “vaccine is as safe as water.” A re-circulated version of the cartoon included an altered caption  not authored by Malviya  that many found offensive.

 

An FIR was filed in Lasudia, Indore, by a local complainant affiliated with a Sangh Parivar-linked group, claiming the cartoon insulted religious sentiments, defamed the RSS, and portrayed the Prime Minister in an obscene manner. The police invoked several provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, which deals with publishing sexually explicit content in electronic form.

 

 

Malviya first approached the Indore District Court, which denied him anticipatory bail in late May. He then approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which on July 3 upheld the lower court’s order. The High Court, in its decision, remarked that “freedom of expression is not a license to insult institutions of national importance,” and allowed police to proceed with custodial interrogation.

 

In response, Malviya’s legal team filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court, arguing that the arrest is unwarranted, excessive, and based on a misreading of satirical content. He contends that the cartoon was intended as political commentary and did not meet the threshold for criminal offence.

 

Cartoonist’s Defence: ‘Satire is not Sedition’

 

Malviya, a professional cartoonist known for his sharp political commentary, maintains that the image in question was an exercise of creative freedom, protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

 

In his Supreme Court plea, he stated:

 

 

His counsel, Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover, has urged the court to consider the broader implications of criminalising satire, especially under the new criminal code, where clarity on digital expression is still evolving.

 

 

The case has ignited intense debate on social media and among civil liberties groups, who see it as another instance of criminal law being used to silence dissent. Art forums, journalist unions, and legal scholars have issued statements calling the FIR “an attack on political cartooning.”

 

Notably, this is among the first high-profile cases under the newly implemented Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaced the Indian Penal Code in July 2025.

 

Critics argue that despite promises of reform, vague provisions related to speech and public order continue to be invoked to prosecute individuals for satire, parody, or criticism of authority.

 

 

The top court will now have to decide whether:

• Malviya qualifies for protection from arrest in a case involving non-violent digital expression.

• The charges under the BNS are being fairly applied, or are being used to suppress legitimate expression.

• There is a need for clearer judicial safeguards for artistic and satirical content under new legal frameworks.

 

The hearing on July 14 could set a precedent for how India balances freedom of expression, political sensitivity, and public morality in the digital age.