Madhya Pradesh High Court Rejects Bail for Cartoonist Over RSS, PM Modi Caricature

Facts of the Case

On 3 July 2025 Hemant Malviya files his first Section 482 application under the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 438 of the CrPC, 1973) for anticipatory bail. He was booked in Crime No. 563/2025 at Lasudiya PS, Indore, for breach of Secs. 196, 299, 302, 352 and 353(3) of BNS, 2023 and Sec. 67A of IT Act, 2000. The charge was that he had doodled a dirty cartoon of the RSS and prime minister Shri Narendra Modi on his public Facebook page, and it was available to anyone. The cartoon showed an RSS pracharak crotch-up and shorts-down, and the PM giving him a shot, with abusive dohas quoting shiva. It was the candidate’s okayed comments on the post that were offensive to the complainant.

✖

Legal Provisions Invoked

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protects the right to free speech and expression; however, Article 19(2) says that this right might be limited in legitimate ways. Sections 196 and 299 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita charge crimes that infringe upon religious feelings and public order. Section 302 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita also had rules on assaulting and blocking a public officer, as did chapters 352 and 353(3). The goal of Section 67A of the Information Technology Act was to deal with the problem of sending obscene material electronically. The court looked at Section 41(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as Section 41A and Section 35 of the BNSS, which say that those who commit crimes with a malicious purpose can’t be released.

Fundamental Issues Addressed

The court took two important issues. Secondly, the court addressed the question of whether the caricature was genuinely satirical, or if it was considered offensive a clear violation of religion under Article 19(2). Second, if the applicant’s conduct was of that [ceding] and public order that custodial interrogation became necessary, then he would not be entitled to anticipatory bail under the bail statute.

Court Observations

The court said the cartoon depicted a religious organization anthropomorphized and used defamatory and humiliating pictures with an irreverent metaphor to Lord Shiva. Unlike in the earlier Imran Pratapgadi v. State of Gujarat and Mammen Varghese v. State of Kerala decisions involving secular or flag pictures, this caricature directly poked religion and was self-drawn and agreed to by the applicant. Court held the petitioner had intentionally and maliciously intended to outrage religious feelings and to disturb public peace. It reasoned that the Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar judgment was not attracted, as the bail conditions of Section 41(1)(b) were fulfilled and Section 41A offered no relief.

Court Order

The Section 482 application was rejected, and the applicant’s request for anticipatory bail was denied. Custodial interrogation was required.