Drawing the Line

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has delivered a necessary rebuke to the habitual mockery of Hindu symbols and institutions masquerading as satire.

Madhya Pradesh

In a democracy, the right to free speech is sacrosanct. But when that freedom is wielded not as a tool for debate but as a cudgel to insult, deride and provoke, especially on religious grounds, there must be consequences. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reminded the country that the constitutional right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) does not offer immunity to deliberate malice when it mocks gods, defames institutions and sows discord.

The Indore bench of the High Court refused anticipatory bail to Hemant Malviya, a local cartoonist accused of posting a caricature maligning the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and most controversially, Lord Shiva. The court’s ruling was unequivocal. “The applicant clearly overstepped the threshold of freedom of speech and expression,” the judge said, describing the cartoon as not only demeaning but “a deliberate and malicious attempt to outrage religious feelings.”

The offence, registered after a complaint by an RSS worker, included sections under India’s new criminal code and the IT Act. At issue was not merely satire or political lampooning, but the targeted insult of Hindu sentiment through an unholy mash-up of religious iconography and political caricature.

Some may argue that cartoons, even offensive ones, must be protected in the spirit of democracy. And indeed, democracy dies when dissent is silenced. But it also frays when only certain faiths, figures or ideologies are held up to ridicule while others are treated as sacred cows, immune from even mild scrutiny. The double standards in Indian public discourse are glaring. A caricature of Lord Shiva prompts laughter in elite circles, but a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed has set nations ablaze, leading to murder.

To be sure, freedom of expression cannot and should not be selectively applied when it comes to any religion. But that is precisely what has become the norm in India. There is a lopsided liberalism at play where ‘artistic freedom’ is evoked when Hindu deities are lampooned or when the Prime Minister is portrayed as a tyrant, but silence prevails when real blasphemy laws are applied in cases involving Islam. One wonders what the reaction would have been had Malviya’s cartoon featured the Prophet, or for that matter Jesus Christ. The likely answer would have been outrage fanned across continents.

For decades, India’s political and cultural establishment has normalised ridicule of the Hindu faith. From lampooning the RSS as ‘fascists’ to portraying deities in vulgar settings, the media, academia and self-styled liberals have revelled in a peculiar brand of secularism that grants protection to minorities while scorning the majority.

Contrast the legal leniency shown to those mocking Hindu beliefs with the impunity that still surrounds far graver offences. No major figure has ever been punished for inciting the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. To question those legacies is to risk being branded ‘communal’ or ‘regressive.’ But to smear Hindu traditions or call the RSS a terrorist group is somehow progressive.

The same constitution that upholds Article 19(1)(a) also limits it through Article 19(2), allowing “reasonable restrictions” on grounds of public order, morality and decency. The Malviya case falls squarely within these limits. His actions were not a mere critique of power or a clever skit of resistance but, in the court’s words, “prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony in the society.”

What the court has done is not to silence dissent, but to reaffirm that freedom is not a licence for abuse.

As India evolves as a pluralist democracy, courts must walk the tightrope between upholding liberty and preventing social strife. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in this case, has walked that line with clarity and courage. Far from being an affront to free speech, its verdict is a much-needed assertion that no right is absolute, and that accountability applies equally to all -cartoonist or cleric, activist or artist.