Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Cartoonist For Allegedly Mocking RSS & PM Modi In Facebook Post

The caricature in question, posted on Malviya's Facebook page, allegedly portrayed a satirical and indecent visual representation of the RSS and the Prime Minister, accompanied by text that included religious references and derogatory language.

A Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar held, “In the considered opinion of this court, on the face of it, the conduct of the applicant in depicting the RSS, which is a Hindu organisation, along with the Prime Minister of this country in the aforesaid caricature, coupled with his endorsement of a rather demeaning remark, dragging unnecessarily the name of lord Shiva in the comments tagged to it, is nothing but the sheer misuse of the freedom of speech and expression as enshrined under Art.19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and falls under the definition of offence as contended by the complainant.”

Advocate Rishabh Gupta appeared for the Applicant and Advocate Amit Raval appeared for the Respondent.

The Court dismissed Malviya’s application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (analogous to Section 438 CrPC, 1973), citing that the artwork amounted to a "sheer misuse" of the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The caricature in question showed a person dressed in the characteristic RSS uniform—white shirt and khaki shorts—with the shorts pulled down, exposing his backside to a caricature of Prime Minister Modi. The Prime Minister was depicted with a stethoscope around his neck and an injection in his hand, which he appeared to be administering to the exposed figure. The post also contained a controversial caption with a reference to Lord Shiva, and the Court found that Malviya had actively endorsed and encouraged further commentary along similar lines.

The Court said, “It is apparent that the applicant's aforesaid act is deliberate and malicious intended to outrage religious feelings of the complainant and the public at large by insulting its religion, which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony in the society.”

The Court concluded that Malviya was not entitled to anticipatory bail as he had demonstrated both the capacity and willingness to repeat such actions in the future. It further held that the protections under Sections 41A of the CrPC (now Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023) and the Arnesh Kumar judgment were not applicable in this case, given the gravity and nature of the allegations.

It added, “Thus, against the applicant, who has clearly demonstrated his propensity to commit the said offence and to promote the same in future also, the provisions of s.41(1)(b)(i) and (ii) would be attracted in full force and he cannot take recourse of the benefit of the provisions of s.41A of Cr.P.C./s. 35 of BNSS and consequently, the benefit of the dictum in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) would also not be available to him.”

Cause Title: Hemant Malviya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [2025:MPHC-IND:16838]

Appearance:

Applicant: Advocate Rishabh Gupta

Respondent: Advocates Amit Raval, Govind Rai Purohit