'Inflammatory, Immature': Supreme Court Slams Cartoon For PM Modi-RSS Sketch
The Supreme Court rebuked Indore-based cartoonist Hemant Malviya for an 'inflammatory' cartoon of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, which is the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party 's ideological mentor, with a link to Lord Shiva in the comments.
A bench headed by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia expressed dismay over the 50-year-old cartoonist's "immaturity" and called his creation an "abuse of freedom of speech and expression". In a sharp observation Monday, the court asked for the cartoon to be deleted.
The court then posted the matter - Malviya's anticipatory bail plea - for futher hearing tomorrow, refusing, as it did, a plea for interim protection against arrest. The court told Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for Malviya, nothing would happen in a 24-hour period.
Earlier, Grover told court Malviya posted only the cartoon and that the comments - on a social media platform on which the image had been shared - had been added by another individual.
"It was from 2021 (during the Covid pandemic)... about some comments that some vaccines are 'safe as water'. There was a lot of confusion and misinformation then about vaccines."
She also pointed out no law-and-order problems had emerged because of the cartoon. "The cartoon made headlines someone else because things live on social media forever," she said.
The cartoonist had not, in the creation of the artwork or since, shown any malafide intentions, she argued, stressing Malviya is ready to delete the post and offer an apology.
Meanwhile, Justice Dhulia asked Additional Solicitor-General KM Nataraj, appearing for the State, if an apology would suffice. "They are saying it is offensive but not an offence..."
To this the ASG responded that if it the cartoon had been admitted to be 'offensive' then it had to be an offence. "This is causing social disharmony and a breakdown of law-and-order... all over the country such things are happening and they are 'triggering'," he said.
Malviya approached the Supreme Court after the Madhya Pradesh High Court refused anticipatory bail. This was after police filed a case for posting 'objectionable content'.
Dismissing the anticipatory bail plea, Justice Subodh Abhyankar had said, "The applicant ought to have used his discretion while drawing the aforesaid caricature... he clearly overstepped the threshold of freedom of speech and expression and doesn't appear to know his limits."
Malviya faces charges of promoting communal disharmony, outraging religious feelings, provoking breach of peace, and others under the Information Technology Act. The offences are punishable by jail terms of between three and five years.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
3 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Secretly recorded calls admissible in marital disputes: SC
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a spouse may rely on secretly recorded telephonic conversations with the other partner in matrimonial disputes, including divorce proceedings, because such communications are not barred under the law and do not amount to a breach of privacy. The bench asserted that while the right to privacy exists between spouses, it is not absolute (ANI) In a significant ruling that reshapes the contours of privacy and evidence within marriage, a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside a 2021 judgment of the Punjab and Haryana high court, which had barred a husband from using a compact disc (CD) or a memory card containing conversations with his estranged wife, recorded without her knowledge. The court relied on section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which bars disclosure of marital communications by one spouse without the other's consent. However, the same provision contains an exception when such communication is brought forth during legal proceedings between the spouses. To be sure, section 122 of the Evidence Act has been replaced by section 121 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The bench asserted that while the right to privacy exists between spouses, it is not absolute. The exception under section 122, it said, must be read in conjunction with the constitutional right to a fair trial, which is also protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. 'We have also referred to the 2017 KS Puttaswamy judgment,' said the court, referring to the landmark ruling that affirmed privacy as a fundamental right. 'However, such rights cannot be applied horizontally in all contexts. Section 122 does not touch upon the right to privacy as envisaged under Article 21 because it is based on the right to a fair trial.' Noting that a conversation between spouses secretly recorded by one of them can be admitted in evidence, the bench emphasised that allowing such evidence in matrimonial cases upholds procedural fairness, particularly where issues such as mental cruelty or marital discord are being litigated. 'Privacy of communication exists, but it is not absolute,' the bench said, pointing out that statutory exceptions such as those in the Evidence Act reflect a balance between privacy and justice. Dealing with the issue of protected nature of conversation between spouses, the bench maintained that if spouses are snooping on each other, the marriage seems to have already broken down. 'Snooping is not the result of pending proceedings but rather a symptom of a broken-down marriage,' said the court, adding that such conversations can be validly produced and proved in legal proceedings between them. The apex court restored the earlier order of the Bathinda family court (2020), which had allowed the husband to prove the contents of the CD in support of his plea for divorce, provided its authenticity was established. The case arose from a 2017 divorce petition filed by a man against his wife, with whom he shared a daughter. In support of his case, the husband submitted a CD of telephonic conversations purportedly between him and his wife, recorded without her knowledge. The Bathinda family court had allowed him to prove the contents of the CD subject to verification of its correctness. However, in 2021, the Punjab and Haryana high court reversed this decision, calling the act of recording a 'clear-cut infringement' of the wife's privacy. It also raised concerns over the manner and context in which such conversations were recorded, calling the evidence inadmissible. The husband then approached the Supreme Court, which began examining the interplay between privacy rights and evidentiary rules. During the hearings, the court appointed advocate Vrinda Grover as amicus curiae, who argued that laws such as section 122, framed in a pre-digital era, must be reinterpreted in light of evolving technology and gender dynamics. In its final ruling, the court, however, maintained a statutory interpretation approach, stating that the exceptions under section 122 must be construed harmoniously with constitutional guarantees, especially the right to a fair trial. The bench concluded that no breach of privacy occurred in the instant case and that such evidence could be tested under appropriate legal standards. 'In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order and restore the 2020 family court order. The family court is allowed to retrieve the recorded conversations and test it under the pertinent legal provisions,' the court ordered.
Hindustan Times
3 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC affirms life term for murder convict, urges Governor to consider pardon
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the life imprisonment of a woman lawyer and her three associates for the 2003 murder of her fiancé, but called on the Karnataka governor to consider their pleas for pardon, observing that society itself cannot escape responsibility for the deviant behavior it often helps shape. The 132-page judgment delved into the possible causes of crime, particularly when it arises from emotional rebellion, systemic inequity and gendered oppression (ANI) A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, while affirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Karnataka High Court to advocate Shubha Shankarnarayan (42) and her three co-accused, delved deep into the sociological underpinnings of criminality and appealed for compassion, transformation and community responsibility. 'Society, through its own systemic failures, inequalities, or neglect often plays a role in shaping criminal behavior,' the bench said, adding that the responsibility of reintegrating and rehabilitating such offenders must also be borne by the society that may have contributed to their alienation. Shubha, daughter of a prominent Bangalore-based lawyer, was engaged to software engineer BV Girish on November 30, 2003. Four days later, on December 3, she asked Girish to take her out for dinner and then insisted on stopping at a spot on the Indiranagar-Koramangala Intermediate Ring Road to watch airplanes land. There, Girish was attacked and murdered by Arun Verma, Shubha's alleged boyfriend and two of his accomplices. All four were convicted by the trial court and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2010. After the high court affirmed their conviction, they had moved the Supreme Court assailing the verdict, which the top court dismissed on Monday. The bench held that the evidence on record was sufficient and endorsed the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Even as it upheld the conviction, the top court refused to end its intervention at a purely punitive level. Citing 161 of the Constitution that vests the power of pardon in the governor, it urged that a broader view of justice be taken in light of the passage of time and subsequent conduct of the convicts. 'The appellants, who committed the offence with adrenaline pumping in their veins, have now reached middle age… They were not born as criminals, but it was an error of judgment through a dangerous adventure,' said the court, adding that none of the four had attracted any adverse conduct reports from jail authorities since their conviction. Accordingly, the court granted the convicts eight weeks to file appropriate petitions seeking pardon under Article 161. It directed that they shall not be arrested and their sentence shall remain suspended until the governor has considered their mercy plea. The 132-page judgment delved into the possible causes of crime, particularly when it arises from emotional rebellion, systemic inequity and gendered oppression. Describing the internal turmoil of Shubha, it noted: 'The voice of a young ambitious girl, muffled by a forced family decision, created the fiercest of turmoil in her mind… backed by an unholy alliance of a mental rebellion and wild romanticism, (it) led to the tragic murder of an innocent young man.' Crime, Justice Sundresh wrote, must be seen not merely as an individual's deviance but as an outcome of multiple interlinked social and psychological factors. 'A crime constitutes a mental rebellion of norms and rules…triggered by causes which are both distant and immediate…The offender becomes a victim, requiring adequate measures for treatment by compassionate correction, structural support, and opportunities for genuine transformation,' said the bench, highlighting the need to move beyond retributive justice. Importantly, the court made a special mention of the gendered dimensions of criminal behaviour and societal control. Referring to the predicament of a young woman forced into an unwanted marriage and denied autonomy, the court observed: 'An unwarranted marriage thrust upon her is the worst form of alienation that she can experience both mentally and physically… A forced marriage, divorcing her from her professional ambitions and curtailing her further education, would certainly warrant a reaction. Such reactions would vary from one woman to another, depending upon the circumstances.'
Hindustan Times
4 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
HC seeks U.P. govt reply in plea on implementation of SC guidelines
: The Allahabad high court has directed the state government to file a better counter-affidavit (reply) with regard to compliance with the Supreme Court's guidelines/directions laid down in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) on preventing and addressing incidents of mob lynching and mob violence. The present petition seeks a probe into the alleged incident by a special investigating team (SIT) and ₹ 50 lakh as compensation for the family of the deceased. (File Photo) A division bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Avnish Saxena sought the affidavit while dealing with a petition filed by the brother of a 37-year-old man killed on suspicion of slaughtering cattle in Uttar Pradesh's Moradabad district last year. The present petition seeks a probe into the alleged incident by a special investigating team (SIT) and ₹50 lakh as compensation for the family of the deceased. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the state had not implemented the mandatory safeguards outlined in the Tehseen Poonawalla ruling, which were mentioned as remedial measures, including the top court's directions regarding prompt FIR registration, nodal officer oversight, timely charge sheet filing and compensation. The high court, in its order, recorded that only the investigating officer had filed a counter-affidavit in the matter, and the U.P. government had not shown any steps taken in line with the binding directions of the apex court. 'Thus, the division bench remarked that the U.P. government should file a better counter affidavit/compliance affidavit keeping in view the directions of the apex court in the case of Tehseen S. Poonawalla within a period of three weeks,' the bench observed. Noting that the FIR should have been lodged by the police under Section 103(2) of the BNS (mob lynching) but was instead registered under Section 103(1) (Murder), the court stayed the investigation in the FIR until the next date of hearing. The court, in its order dated July 10, directed that the matter will now be heard next on August 5. In the present writ petition, the petitioner alleged that the state government has failed to formulate a Lynching/Mob Violence Compensation Scheme in compliance with the provisions of Section 357A of the criminal procedure code (CrPC), despite the explicit and binding direction in the Tehseen Poonawalla case, which constitutes 'grave' and 'wilful' violation of the rule of law. The petition also requested the court to direct the U.P. government to take disciplinary action against the police officials involved in the matter, as per the Supreme Court's directions to ensure accountability. It also requested the court to direct the government of India to launch public awareness campaigns against mob violence and lynching, highlighting legal consequences, as directed by the Supreme Court. At around 3 am on December 30 last year, Shahedeen and a few others were allegedly caught by a mob for slaughtering a cow for meat. While the others managed to flee, Shahedeen was left behind and was brutally beaten by the mob for nearly an hour. He succumbed to the injuries the next day. Later, Moradabad police booked Shahedeen and his alleged accomplices under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act.
