Cartoonist Booked Over Cartoon On PM & RSS Approaches Supreme Court Seeking Anticipatory Bail

The Supreme Court will hear on Monday, July 14, a special leave petition filed by cartoonist Hemant Malviya against a Madhya Pradesh High Court order denying him anticipatory bail in connection with a cartoon posted on his Facebook page.

Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover mentioned the plea to before a bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Joymalya Bagchi and submitted, “The High Court order condemns me. It says Arnesh Kumar will not apply, 41-A will not apply and Imran Pratapgarhi will also not apply.” She further said, “This is about a cartoon I made back in 2021 during COVID. The offence is under BNS and maximum 3 years of punishment.”

Malviya in his plea contends, “A malicious FIR has been filed against the Petitioner to punish him for exercising his freedom of speech and expression, which the complainant has found unpalatable to his personal views. However, on a perusal of the contents of the FIR, it is evident that ex-facie none of the offences mentioned in the FIR are made out against the Petitioner.”

The Madhya Pradesh High Court had rejected Malviya's anticipatory bail application and held that he is not entitled to protection under Section 41-A of the CrPC or Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), or the safeguards laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.

The petition states that the cartoon in question was published on January 6, 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The cartoon was said to be a satirical comment on a public figure's statement that some vaccines were “safe like water” even though their efficacy was not tested through rigorous clinical trials. The caricature, according to the petition, was the artist's imagination of a common man being vaccinated by a public representative and has been in public circulation on social media for over four years.

According to the plea, on May 1, 2025, an unknown individual reposted the cartoon with added commentary suggesting that the caste census was being used to divert attention from other issues like Waqf and Pahalgam. The petition claims that Malviya shared that post to demonstrate that his cartoons are freely available for public use and expression. The petition also says that Malviya did not endorse the views expressed in the added commentary but acknowledged the use of his cartoon.

Following this, an FIR was registered on May 21, 2025 under Sections 196, 299, 302, 352, 353(2) of the BNSS and Section 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The complaint alleged that the cartoon tarnished the image of the RSS, incited violence, and hurt religious sentiments of the complainant, who identified himself as a member of the RSS and the Hindu community.

Malviya's anticipatory bail application was first dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore on May 24, 2025. He then approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which dismissed the plea on July 3, 2025.

In its judgment, the High Court found that Malviya had “overstepped the threshold of freedom of speech and expression” and observed that custodial interrogation was necessary. The court took note of the cartoon, which depicted a human figure representing the RSS in uniform, bending over with its shorts pulled down, being administered an injection by a caricature of Prime Minister Modi. The PM figure was shown with a stethoscope and a syringe.

The court found the content objectionable and said that it was worsened by “derogatory lines involving Lord Shiva,” which the applicant had endorsed and circulated. The court said that the applicant's act was “deliberate and malicious,” intended to outrage religious feelings and disturb societal harmony.

Rejecting the applicability of the Arnesh Kumar guidelines, the court observed that Malviya had a “propensity” to commit the same offence again. It held that Sections 41(1)(b)(i) and (ii) would apply and Malviya could not invoke Section 41A CrPC or Section 35 BNSS for protection from arrest.

In his petition before the Supreme Court, Malviya has submitted that the allegations relate to artistic expression and reposting of publicly available content, which do not justify custodial interrogation. The plea contends that the FIR is a misuse of the criminal law machinery to punish dissent, and that the offences mentioned are not made out from a plain reading of the FIR.

The petition notes that none of the offences are punishable with more than seven years, and that the protections under Imran Pratapgarhi and Arnesh Kumar are squarely applicable.

The Supreme Court will take up the matter on Monday.

Case Title – Hemant Malviya v. State of Madhya Pradesh