Supreme Court Grants Interim Anticipatory Bail To MP Cartoonist After His Apology For Objectionable Post On Prime Minister

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 15) granted interim protection to Indore based cartoonist Hemant Malviya, who has been booked over a cartoon shared on Facebook that allegedly contains derogatory references to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the RSS. The court listed the matter after August 15th for further hearing.The order was passed after Malviya submitted an apology. The Court directed him to file the apology in Hindi in the form of an affidavit and directed the parties to complete the pleading till the next date.A bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Aravind Kumar was hearing a special leave petition filed by cartoonist Hemant Malviya challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court order which denied him anticipatory bail in a case related to a cartoon he had posted on Facebook.The cartoon in question, made in 2021, posing questions about the efficacy of Covid vaccines, was reused by a Facebook user in May 2025 along with certain objectionable comments in the context of the Government's decision to hold a caste census. Malviya re-shared the post and endorsed the comments. This led to an FIR against him.Yesterday, after the Court expressed disapproval of the cartoonist's conduct, Advocate Vrinda Grover agreed to delete his post and to make a statement that he was not endorsing the objectionable comments.Today, at the outset, Advocate Vrinda Grover for Malviya informed the bench that, in addition to deleting the post as agreed the previous day, the petitioner was offering an apology. She said, “In addition to deletion, my lords had sought something. I think this will satisfy the court.” Grover added that the petitioner was a Hindi speaker and sought permission to submit the apology in Hindi as well.Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the State, submitted certain screenshots of objectionable social media posts allegedly made by Malviya. Grover objected, stating that the posts were unrelated to the FIR in question. “There is no date. The person can have a critical opinion about things, it does not constitute an offence,” she said. She further argued, “Can he not say something just because there is an FIR against him? Has he lost that liberty?”ASG Nataraj submitted, “The manner he has done is clearly an offence...He does not deserve any indulgence.” Grover responded, “Why is this being put here to prejudice my client? I am just now receiving this. This is not related to the case.”The bench remarked that one of the posts was “very very offensive.” Justice Dhulia said, “What is happening today, this is all kinds of statements are being made. The language they use. There are some among the lawyer community also doing this.” In response, Grover submitted, “Let them place those on record and give the man an opportunity to... Give an opportunity to a person who has on social media gone haywire to come back.”The Court ordered the respondents to file an affidavit putting the aforementioned posts on record and asked Malviya to file a response to the same.Grover then sought the court's permission to delete the posts. ASG Nataraj submitted that if the posts were to be deleted, copies of the deleted posts must be furnished for investigation. Justice Dhulia said that the bench has recorded the statement made on behalf of the petitioner that he intended to delete the posts, but no order to delete the posts was passed.Background Advocate Vrinda Grover mentioned the matter last week before a bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. She submitted that the High Court order condemns the petitioner and excludes the application of safeguards laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, Section 41-A CrPC, and Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat. Malviya's plea before the Supreme Court contends that a malicious FIR was filed against him to punish him for exercising his freedom of speech and expression. It claims that the FIR does not disclose any offence against him. The cartoon, published on January 6, 2021, was described in the petition as a satirical comment on a public figure's statement that some vaccines were “safe like water” despite lack of rigorous clinical testing. The image, according to the petition, showed a common man being vaccinated by a public representative and had been in circulation on social media for over four years. The plea says that an unknown person reposted the cartoon in May 2025 with added commentary, and Malviya shared it only to show that his work was publicly available. Following this, an FIR was registered on May 21, 2025, under Sections 196, 299, 302, 352, and 353(2) of the BNSS and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The complaint, filed by a person claiming to be a member of the RSS and Hindu community, alleged that the cartoon insulted the RSS, incited violence, and hurt religious sentiments. Malviya's anticipatory bail plea was first dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, on...

Supreme Court Grants Interim Anticipatory Bail To MP Cartoonist After His Apology For Objectionable Post On Prime Minister

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags