The Madhya Pradesh High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Indore-based cartoonist Hemant Malviya, who is facing allegations of publishing a caricature that portrayed the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Prime Minister Narendra Modi in an “undignified” manner.

In an order passed on July 3, Justice Subodh Abhyankar observed that Malviya had crossed the boundaries of free speech and misused the constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a). The Court held that the cartoon, along with its accompanying remarks involving Lord Shiva, was not made in good faith and called for Malviya’s custodial interrogation.

“In the considered opinion of this Court, the applicant’s conduct amounts to a misuse of freedom of speech and expression,” the judge stated, adding that the depiction of a Hindu organisation and the Prime Minister, coupled with an endorsement of allegedly demeaning commentary, offended religious sentiments and disturbed societal harmony.

The Court also took note of Malviya’s encouragement to others to use and share the caricature, terming the act as “deliberate and malicious.” It concluded that the post was “prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony in society” and fell within the purview of the offences alleged by the complainant.

Malviya was booked in May after a Facebook post featuring the cartoon drew objection from an RSS member. The caricature depicted a man wearing RSS attire bent over with exposed buttocks, while a figure resembling Prime Minister Modi, shown with a stethoscope and an injection, administered a shot to him.

Malviya’s counsel argued that the image was a piece of satire and contended that guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar regarding arrests were not being followed. However, the State opposed the bail plea, maintaining that the cartoon was offensive and could not be shielded by the right to freedom of expression.

The Court held that given Malviya’s apparent intent and potential to repeat such acts, protections under Sections 41A of the CrPC and 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) could not be extended to him. It ruled that the exceptions carved out in Arnesh Kumar would not apply in this case.

Accordingly, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

Advocate Rishabh Gupta appeared for the petitioner, Advocate Amit Raval represented the State, and Advocate Govind Rai Purohit represented the complainant.