Will the SC Hear the Anticipatory Bail Plea of Cartoonist Hemant Malviya on July 14?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Supreme Court will hear Hemant Malviya's bail plea on July 14. Accused of sharing provocative cartoons about RSS and BJP leaders, this case raises critical questions about freedom of speech and the limits of satire. Can humor cross the line into inciting discord?
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court will examine the implications of freedom of expression in the context of satire.
- Hemant Malviya challenges the denial of his anticipatory bail by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
- The case underscores the delicate balance between artistic freedom and social harmony.
- Legal experts are closely watching the outcome of this case for broader implications.
- The controversy revolves around the interpretation of humor in relation to religious sentiments.
New Delhi, July 11 (NationPress) The Supreme Court has decided to hear the anticipatory bail plea of cartoonist Hemant Malviya on July 14. Malviya faces charges from the Madhya Pradesh Police for allegedly sharing 'indecent' social media posts targeting Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) officials and BJP leaders.
A Bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi will address the plea after advocate Vrinda Grover requested an urgent listing.
The controversial caricature depicted an RSS figure with khaki shorts down, as the Prime Minister administered an injection to him, paired with a caption that alluded to 'derogatory lines involving Lord Shiva' and the 'caste census'.
In his special leave petition (SLP) to the apex court, Malviya challenges the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order rejecting his pre-arrest bail.
The High Court’s order, issued on July 3, by Justice Subodh Abhyankar, noted that such content could disrupt social harmony, asserting that Malviya had 'clearly overstepped the threshold of freedom of speech'.
Justice Abhyankar remarked that Malviya’s content, coupled with his endorsement and invitation for others to alter and share the cartoon, was distasteful and aimed at outraging religious sentiments.
The Lasudia police station in Indore registered a case against Malviya under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The prosecution argued that the cartoon was a persistent attempt by Malviya to tarnish the image of the RSS and disrupt societal peace.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed that the freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution does not protect deliberate insults to religion or actions that incite discord, concluding that the caricature and Malviya’s public support surpassed acceptable satire and necessitated serious legal repercussions.
Point of View
I recognize the necessity of balancing free speech with social responsibility. The case of Hemant Malviya highlights the ongoing tension between artistic expression and the potential for social discord. While satire is a vital element of discourse, it must always consider the sensitivity of religious sentiments and the broader impact on societal harmony.
NationPress
13/07/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the charges against Hemant Malviya?
Hemant Malviya faces charges for allegedly sharing indecent social media posts that target RSS functionaries and BJP leaders. The Madhya Pradesh Police registered a case under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act.
When will the Supreme Court hear the bail plea?
The Supreme Court has scheduled the hearing for Hemant Malviya's anticipatory bail plea on July 14.
What was the content of the controversial caricature?
The caricature depicted an RSS figure in a compromising position and included a provocative caption referencing derogatory lines involving Lord Shiva and the caste census.
What did the Madhya Pradesh High Court say about the case?
The Madhya Pradesh High Court denied Malviya's bail request, stating that the content could disturb social harmony and that he had crossed the limits of lawful satire.
Why is this case significant?
This case raises critical questions about the balance between freedom of speech and the potential for inciting social discord, especially concerning sensitive religious sentiments.
