‘Undignified' Modi caricature: SC grants interim protection from arrest to Indore cartoonist
However, the bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar cautioned that if the cartoonist, Hemant Malviya, continued to share offensive posts on social media, the Madhya Pradesh government was free to take action against him, PTI reported.
The order came after Malviya submitted an apology for his social media post. The court has directed the cartoonist to file the apology in Hindi as an affidavit, Live Law reported.
On Monday, the cartoonist agreed to delete the allegedly objectionable post after being criticised by the Supreme Court.
Malviya had moved the top court challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that denied him anticipatory bail in the case.
The High Court in its July 3 order observed that Malviya had 'clearly overstepped' the limits of free speech and misused his right to expression.
The court held that the cartoonist had failed to exercise discretion while publishing the caricature and held that his custodial interrogation was necessary.
The case
Malviya had published the original cartoon on January 6, 2021, which depicted Modi as a doctor administering an injection to a man dressed in what may have appeared to some as the uniform of the RSS.
The RSS is the parent organisation of the Bharatiya Janata Party.
It was accompanied with the Hindi caption: 'Why are you worried? Serum's Poonawala has said that the vaccine only has water, you won't die from the side effect of water!'
This was a reference to Serum Institute of India's chief executive Adar Poonawalla alleging that many Covid-19 vaccines in the market were only as effective as water.
According to the Madhya Pradesh High Court order, a Facebook user had republished the cartoon, but replaced the caption with one in which the man in the purported RSS uniform addresses Modi as an incarnation of the Hindu deity Shiva and asks to be injected with such a strong dose of the caste census in his buttocks so that he forgets the Pahalgam terror attack, the controversial Waqf Act, among other matters.
Malviya had shared the amended version of his cartoon on Facebook on May 1, writing that anyone could use any of his cartoons by writing their own names and captions. All his cartoons were for the public, by the public and dedicated to the public, he said.
He added that the amended cartoon was shared with him by a friend and that whoever had created the caption had written well.
Based on this, a RSS member had filed a complaint, alleging that Malviya had posted objectionable content on Facebook that defamed the Hindutva organisation and hurt religious sentiments.
Malviya was booked in May under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act pertaining to promoting enmity between different groups, acts intended to outrage religious feelings, intentional insult and electronically publishing or transmitting material containing sexually explicit acts.
Malviya has argued that he was falsely implicated in the case and that his work was merely satire. He also said that the comments about the caricature on Facebook were not his own, and therefore, he could not be held responsible for them.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
6 minutes ago
- Hans India
NHRC plans 2-day Camp Sitting in Bhubaneswar starting July 21
New Delhi: Complaints on crimes against women and children and attacks on journalists are expected to top the agenda as the NHRC gears up to hold a two-day Camp Sitting in Bhubaneswar on July 21 and 22, an official said on Saturday National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Chairperson Justice V. Ramasubramanian will lead his team to hear the cases of alleged human rights violations from 10 a.m. at State Guest House Unit 5 in Keshari Nagar. Other rights panel functionaries at the sitting include members Justice (Dr) Bidyut Ranjan Sarangi, Vijaya Bharathi Sayani and Priyank Kanoongo. NHRC Secretary General Bharat Lal, Registrar (Law)Joginder Singh and other senior officers will also be attending the Camp Sitting and open hearing. Besides hearing cases, the Camp Sitting aims to sensitise officers about human rights by delivering speedy justice to victims of rights violations. The Commission will also interact with the representatives of civil society organisations, NGOs and Human Rights Defenders (HRDs). The State authorities and the complainants have been asked to remain present at the hearing of these cases to facilitate on-the-spot deliberations and decisions. The cases to be taken up include attacks on journalists, HRDs and their families; crimes against women; crimes against children including under the POCSO Act; death due to snake bites and lack of medical support; flooding issues faced by over five families in Bhadrak, Kendrapada and other costal districts; human rights violations due to witchcraft and sorcery accusation, and trafficking of girl child during Covid-19 period. After the hearing of the cases, the Commission will meet with the Chief Secretary, Director General of Police and other senior officers of the state to deliberate on issues pertaining to the promotion and protection of human rights, said a statement. On July 22, the Commission will meet representatives of civil society organisations, NGOs and HRDs. 'Thereafter, a media briefing will be held about the outcome of the camp sitting to have a wider dissemination of information on the human rights issues in the State and the actions taken by the NHRC,' said the official statement. Since 2007, the NHRC has been holding camp sittings across the country. The Commission has held camp sittings in various states including Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, Odisha, Gujarat, Assam, Meghalaya, Chhattisgarh, Manipur, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Kerala, Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Andaman and Nicobar, Nagaland, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Arunachal Pradesh, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra.
India.com
6 minutes ago
- India.com
Trumps Five Jets Remark Sparks Political Row in India; Rahul Gandhi Demands Clarity, BJP Hits Back
New Delhi: A political clash has erupted in India following US President Donald Trump's ambiguous remarks about five jets being downed during Operation Sindoor, India's military response to the April Pahalgam terror attack. The comment has prompted Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi to demand an explanation from Prime Minister Narendra Modi, while the BJP has accused him of harboring a "traitor's mentality." Trump, speaking at a private dinner on Friday, claimed that five fighter jets were shot down during the operation but did not specify whether the aircraft belonged to India or Pakistan. "Planes were being shot out of the air. Five, five, four or five, but I think five jets were shot down actually," Trump said. Operation Sindoor was launched by India to strike terror infrastructure across nine locations in Pakistan. These included key sites like the Jaish-e-Mohammed headquarters in Bahawalpur and Lashkar-e-Taiba's base in Muridke. In the aftermath, Pakistan claimed it had shot down multiple Indian jets — including three Rafale fighters, which are among the most advanced aircraft in the Indian Air Force. India acknowledged some losses during the operation but has not disclosed a specific figure. Instead, it emphasized the strategic lessons learned from the mission. "What is important is that, not the jet being down, but why they were being down," said India's Chief of Defence Staff, General Anil Chauhan, while firmly denying Pakistan's assertion that six Indian jets were shot down. He added, "The good part is that we are able to understand the tactical mistake which we made, remedy it, rectify it, and then implement it again after two days and fly all our jets again, targeting at long range." Following Trump's comments, Rahul Gandhi took to Twitter (X) on Saturday, sharing the video and demanding answers from the Prime Minister. "Modi ji, what is the truth behind the five jets? The country has a right to know," he wrote in Hindi. — Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) July 19, 2025 Responding sharply, BJP leader Amit Malviya pointed out that Trump had not specified the nationality of the jets and accused Rahul Gandhi of aligning with Pakistan's narrative. "Rahul Gandhi's mentality is that of a traitor. In his statement, Trump neither took the name of India nor said that those five planes belonged to India. Then why did the prince of Congress accept him as belonging to India? Why did he not accept him as belonging to Pakistan? Does he sympathise more with Pakistan than his own country?" Malviya wrote in a post on X in Hindi. He continued, "The truth is that Pakistan has not yet recovered from Operation Sindoor... but Rahul Gandhi is in pain! Whenever the country's army teaches a lesson to the enemy, Congress gets irritated. Anti-India sentiment is no longer a habit of Congress; it has become its identity. Rahul Gandhi should make it clear - is he an Indian or a spokesperson of Pakistan?"
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
6 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC bench to hear Presidential reference on timelines for bills on July 22
In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on the powers of governors and the President Press Trust of India New Delhi A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider on July 22 the Presidential reference on whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies. According to the cause list posted on the apex court website, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar will be hearing the matter. In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised her powers under Article 143(1) and posed 14 crucial questions to the Supreme Court over its April 8 verdict that fixed timelines for governors and the President to act on bills passed by state assemblies. Article 143 (1) of the Constitution deals with the power of President to consult the Supreme Court "if at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon". The April 8 verdict, passed in a matter over the powers of the governor in dealing with bills questioned by the Tamil Nadu government, for the first time prescribed that the President should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received. In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on the powers of governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature. Article 200 deals with situations with regard to the passage of bills by the state assembly and subsequent options available to the governor on grant of assent or withholding of assent or sending the bill to the President for reconsideration. Article 201 deals with the bills reserved for the President's consideration by the governor. The Centre has resorted to the presidential reference instead of seeking a review of the verdict, which has evoked sharp reactions in the political spectrum. The rules prescribe that the review petitions be heard by the same set of judges in the apex court in chambers, while presidential references are heard and considered by a five-judge Constitution bench. The apex court, however, may choose to refuse to answer any or all of the questions raised in the reference. Article 200, the reference underlined, which prescribes powers of the governor to be followed while assenting to bills, withholding assent to bills and reserving a bill for the President's consideration, does not stipulate any time frame upon the governor to exercise constitutional options. The President said that similarly, Article 201, which prescribes the powers of the President and the procedure to be followed while assenting to bills or withholding assent therefrom, does not stipulate any time frame or procedure to be followed by the President for the exercise of constitutional options under Article 201 of the Constitution. President Murmu also questioned the exercise of plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court to make the bill re-presented to the Tamil Nadu Governor, as deemed to have been passed. "Whereas the concept of a deemed assent of the President and the Governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the power of the President and the Governor," the reference of May 13 said. President Murmu said the contours and scope of provisions in Article 142 of the Constitution in context of issues which are occupied by either constitutional provisions or statutory provisions also require an opinion of the Supreme Court of India. "It appears to me that the following questions of the law have arisen and are of such nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court of India thereon," President Murmu said while posing 14 questions to the apex court for its opinion. The SC verdict has set a timeline for all governors to act on the bills passed by the state assemblies and ruled that the governor does not possess any discretion in the exercise of functions under Article 200 of the Constitution in respect to any bill presented to them and must mandatorily abide by the advice tendered by the council of ministers. It had said that state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the President withholds assent on a bill sent by a governor for consideration. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, which passed the verdict, said that reserving a bill on grounds such as "personal dissatisfaction of Governor, political expediency or any other extraneous or irrelevant considerations" was strictly impermissible by the Constitution and would be liable to be set aside forthwith on that ground alone. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
