'Objectionable' cartoons on PM Modi, RSS: Freedom of speech, expression abused, says Supreme Court
"Why do you do all this?" a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar asked the counsel of cartoonist Hemant Malviya, who sought anticipatory bail in the matter.
Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing Malviya, said the matter was over a cartoon made in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic.
"It may be unpalatable. Let me say it is in poor taste. Let me go to that extent. But is it an offence? My lords have said, it can be offensive but it is not an offence. I am simply on law. I am not trying to justify anything," she said.
Ms. Grover agreed to delete the post made by Mr. Malviya.
"Whatever we may do with this case, but this is definitely the case that the freedom of speech and expression is being abused," Justice Dhulia observed.
Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, appearing for Madhya Pradesh, said such "things" were repeatedly done.
When Ms. Grover said there should be some maturity, Mr. Nataraj said, "It is not the question of maturity alone. It is something more." Referring to the time of the cartoon's inception, Mr. Grover said there had been no law and order problem since then.
She said the issue was of personal liberty and whether this would require arrest and remand.
The bench posted the matter on July 15.
Ms. Grover requested the bench to grant interim protection the petitioner till then.
"We will see this tomorrow," the bench said.
Mr. Malviya is challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court order passed on July 3 refusing to grant him anticipatory bail.
Mr. Malviya was booked by Lasudiya police station in Indore in May on a complaint filed by lawyer and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh worker Vinay Joshi.
Malviya hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus and disturbed communal harmony by uploading objectionable material on social media, Mr. Joshi alleged.
The FIR mentioned various "objectionable" posts, including allegedly inappropriate comments on Lord Shiva as well as cartoons, videos, photographs and comments regarding Mr. Modi, RSS workers and others.
Mr. Malviya's lawyer before the High Court contended that he only posted a cartoon, but he could not be held responsible for the comments posted on it by other Facebook users.
The FIR accused him of posting indecent and objectionable material with the intention of hurting religious sentiments of Hindus and tarnishing the RSS's image.
The police invoked Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Sections 196 (acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony between different communities), 299 (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) and 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) as well as section 67-A (publishing or transmitting in electronic form any sexually explicit material) of the Information Technology Act against the accused.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
25 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump May End Up Sorry He Tried to Control the Fed
Our conspiracy-minded, deep-state-vigilant president has suggested that there is no great scandal surrounding the life and death of Jeffrey Epstein, but there is a Jerome Powell scandal. While we are assured that Mr. Epstein's long history of ties to politicians, royals, Wall Street figures and others stemmed only from the man's generous hospitality, magnetic personality and promise of evenings of Socratic interlocution, Mr. Powell's sin is to be the first bureaucrat in history to oversee large overruns in a construction budget. It seems renovations to the Federal Reserve's new headquarters in Washington are on the lavish side, and the chairman might even have been a little economical with the truth in his public accounting for them. Scandals, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. They play an instrumental role. We choose to believe a conspiracy because it suits our larger narrative and discount another when it doesn't. My conspiracy is your screw-up. So it must be that the 'Epstein Files,' whatever they are, aren't as helpful to Donald Trump and his conspiracy sniffer dogs as they'd hoped. Perhaps even unhelpful. Mr. Powell's architectural transgressions, however, are very helpful. It is no secret that Mr. Trump wants the Fed chairman gone. Just last week he was complaining again about the man he calls 'Too Late Powell,' telling reporters he was doing a 'terrible job' and that interest rates should be '3 points lower' than the current target 4.25% to 4.5% fed-funds rate. I shall refrain from the pearl-clutching of much of the media about Mr. Trump's efforts to pressure the Fed to be more accommodating. Since the Fed gained true independence in the 1950s, almost every president has complained that the central bank was holding back the economy with high interest rates. What's more, there are reasonable grounds for thinking Mr. Powell has gotten things badly wrong. Even the Fed agrees it was too slow in responding to the inflationary surge that followed the Covid-19 pandemic. You don't have to believe the theories that a politically partisan Mr. Powell worked to help President Biden and harm Mr. Trump to think he erred repeatedly on the side of easy money in the past four years and may now be overestimating the inflationary risk today. The problem, though, is that replacing him with someone committed to doing Mr. Trump's bidding would make things much worse. If it's true that Arthur Burns, Fed chairman under President Richard Nixon, said that the Fed's independence is 'so precious that we dare not risk exercising it,' it is also true that the central bank's incompetence is so proprietary that a president dare not risk trying to correct it. However bad Fed policy is, if markets think the central bank is run according to the president's priorities, the likely consequence will be tighter, not easier, money. If Mr. Trump could really find a person on the planet who thinks rates should be '3 points lower' than they are—pushing the policy rate down to 1.25%, a negative real rate of about 1.5% in an economy the president himself touts as 'booming'—yields on everything from Treasurys to corporate bonds would surge on confident expectations that the Fed was lighting an inflationary bonfire. Central-bank independence isn't divinely ordained. The Fed's policymaking framework was largely set by the Treasury until 1951. Most countries have had independent central banks only in the past 50 years—in the post-Bretton Woods global monetary regime. There are lots of reasons—from gold to crypto to artificial intelligence—to think our current model of monetary-policy management may need an overhaul. But there's one important sense in which independence is more important now than ever. The crisis of democracy on display in Washington—in which fiscal prudence has been completely sacrificed to immediate political objectives—is precisely why we need a monetary-policy architecture that constrains rather than amplifies politicians' desires. There's another sense in which Mr. Trump should be careful what he wishes for. History suggests the propulsive logic that makes central banks lean against political preferences is hard to shake, even by a determined president. Ronald Reagan tangled repeatedly with Paul Volcker in the 1980s and eventually replaced him with Alan Greenspan. Five years later his Republican successor, George H.W. Bush, blamed Mr. Greenspan in part for his re-election defeat after the Fed kept policy tight during the 1992 recession. In his epic history of the Fed, the late Allan Meltzer recounts the case of Harry S. Truman and William McChesney Martin. In 1951 the Fed was chafing under the Treasury's monetary control, forced to cap bond yields at 2.5% to assist in the Korean War effort. Martin was the Treasury official running point, and when Truman forced out Fed chairman Thomas McCabe, he replaced him with his favorite at Treasury. The new Fed boss promptly became one of the most famously hawkish central-bank governors, royally infuriating a succession of presidents, starting with Truman himself, who, it is said, later called Martin a 'traitor.' Surely that would never happen to Mr. Trump?
NDTV
27 minutes ago
- NDTV
Amid Row In Bihar, NDTV Explains 'Special Intensive Revision' Of Voter Lists
The Election Commission on Monday activated resources for a potential national 'special intensive revision' of voter lists. Some states - including national capital Delhi and Uttarakhand - have already released current lists, a move seen as a prelude to asking voters to re-verify their names on the rolls. Sources said the Election Commission will take a final call on a pan-India voter list revision - for the purpose of weeding out non-Indians by identifying each individual's place of birth - after July 28, when the Supreme Court is expected to finish hearing challenges to just such an exercise in Bihar. Last week the Supreme Court affirmed the Election Commission's authority - under the Constitution - to review these lists "so non-citizens do not remain on the rolls". What Is Revision Of Voter List? Section 21 of the Representation of People Act of 1950 says the Election Commission is tasked with preparing and revising electoral rolls for all Assembly and parliamentary constituencies in the country. The term 'electoral roll' or 'voter list' refers to a register of all eligible and registered voters in each constituency. The list is critical to ensure a free, fair, and transparent electoral process.\ READ | 'Voter List Revision Before Polls A Conspiracy': Tejashwi Yadav To NDTV Under Section 16 of Representation of People Act, or RP Act, non-citizens are excluded from this list, while Section 19 allows for the inclusion of all Indian citizens over the age of 18. Voter lists are typically revised before an election or after an administrative exercise like redrawing of constituencies, and there are two kinds of these revisions. 'Intensive', 'Summary', 'Special Intensive' The first is an 'intensive' revision. This is when the EC feels current lists are outdated or inaccurate, and is basically an exercise in completely re-creating a voter list, meaning personnel go house-to-house to collect fresh data. The second is a 'summary' revision. This is meant to be an annual exercise to refresh voter lists and only involves the Election Commission publishing the list and inviting people to correct, modify, or delete details. The 'special intensive' revision - a combination of the two - in Bihar is only carried out when the poll panel feels there are large-scale errors, and is allowed under Section 21(3) of the RP Act. Why Revision Of Voter Lists Is Needed A revision - 'intensive', 'summary', or 'special intensive' - helps remove ineligible voters and also add those who may have been missed in earlier lists, as well as include newly eligible voters. Importantly, it ensures migrant voters and shifting populations are accurately counted. On Monday the Election Commission said it had dropped 35 lakh names. The poll panel said 1.59 per cent of registered individuals, equivalent to 12.5 lakh voters, were found to have died. Another 2.2 per cent, or 17.5 lakh electors, had relocated and are no longer eligible to vote in the state. And 0.73 per cent, around 5.5 lakh, had double-registered. EC sources told NDTV this data underlined the importance of revising voter lists. Also last week, EC sources said door-to-door visits had revealed 'many' people from neighbouring countries, like Nepal, Bangladesh, and Myanmar, on the voter lists. Sources said these people managed to obtain Indian government documents like domicile certificates and ration cards in their name, and had been wrongly included in the voter list. Challenges In Voter List Revision The principal challenge is to ensure eligible voters are not disenfranchised. The reference is specifically to voters from poorer sections of society and from marginalised communities, who may not (now) have access to the documents required for re-verification. Inter and intra-state migrant populations are another at-risk community. A large chunk of Bihar's adult population, for example, moves to other states in search of employment. In most cases they retain voting rights at their place of birth but, because of a lack of education, awareness, and access to documents, cannot always prove this to be the case. Apart from these issues, even a statewide voter list revision requires significant funds and use of manpower, which may place additional strain on the poll body's resources. This is particularly a concern if the EC is scheduled to hold an election just months later, as it is in the case of Bihar. Bihar Voter List Row The Bihar exercise has run into trouble for two reasons - one, because it comes just months before an election in that state, and two, because the EC had said common government IDs, such as the Aadhaar and its own voter identity card, could not be used for re-verification. The opposition - the Congress and the Rashtriya Janata Dal - has argued a revision at this late stage is a 'conspiracy' to slash its support base by excluding lakhs of people, including those who have already voted in 10 major elections since the last revision. The opposition also questioned the legality of the exercise and flagged the poll body's decision to not accept commonly-used government IDs, such as the poll body's own identity card, for re-verification. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party-Janata Dal United has countered by accusing the opposition of trying to shield 'fake' voters, a charge buttressed by reports that foreign nationals had registered as voters. On Monday the Supreme Court - approached to stay the Bihar special intensive revision - refused to do so, although it did tell the Election Commission it had "serious doubts" about the exercise being completed in time for the Bihar election. The court also suggested the EC include common government IDs like the Aadhaar in the re-verification process to ensure all eligible voters can be identified. NDTV is now available on WhatsApp channels. Click on the link to get all the latest updates from NDTV on your chat.
NDTV
36 minutes ago
- NDTV
3 Judges, 3 Cases, 2 Days: Supreme Court's 'Balance' Message On Free Speech
New Delhi: Three cases, three benches, two days -- the Supreme Court is sending a clear message: freedom of expression is not absolute; it must respect an individual's right to dignity and those misusing this freedom must face action. The top court's strong observations are significant in an era where social media has democratised public opinion, but made us vulnerable to virtual attacks and brutal trolling by strangers, often anonymous. Case 1: Article 19 vs Article 21 Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi today heard a case related to stand-up comics and podcasters, including Samay Raina, who are in trouble for controversial remarks in their shows. The influencers have been asked to respond to a petition that flagged their objectionable remarks on persons with disabilities. Sources said the court has taken serious note of these remarks. The top court also asked Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for the Centre, to prepare social media guidelines that balance freedom of speech and expression and rights of others. When Attorney General R Venkataramani said the proposed guidelines need to be discussed, Justice Kant said an open debate is needed. "There are many free advisors in the market. Ignoring them... the guidelines should be in conformity with constitutional principles balancing freedom and where the rights and duties start. We will have an open debate on such guidelines. let all stakeholders also come and give their viewpoints," he observed. "Suppose a race takes place between Article 19 and 21, Article 21 has to trump over Article 19," the court said. While Article 19 relates to freedom of expression, Article 21 pertains to the right to life. This is especially significant at a time when trolling and online attacks create mental stress and anxiety, and can also incite violence. The court noted that it needs to protect citizens' rights and ensure that nobody's dignity is violated. Case 2: 'Freedom Being Abused' A bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Aravind Kumar was hearing a cartoonist's petition for relief after an FIR was registered against him for allegedly sharing objectionable content on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and RSS workers. "Log kisi ko bhi, kuch bhi keh dete hain (People say anything to anyone). We will have to do something about it)," the bench said. While granting relief to the cartoonist Hemant Malviya, the bench noted that if he continued to share offensive social media posts, the Madhya Pradesh government would be free to take action. Malviya was accused of hurting the religious sentiments of Hindus and disturbing communal harmony. When his counsel, Vrinda Grover, said that the cartoon could be said to be in "poor taste". "But is it an offence?" she asked. Justice Dhulia replied, "Whatever we may do with this case, but this is definitely the case that the freedom of speech and expression is being abused." Case 3: 'Who Wants State To Step In' On Monday, a bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a petition by Wajahat Khan, who filed a complaint against influencer Sharmistha Panoli in a hate speech case. Khan has now been arrested for his social media posts. He has said complaints have been registered against him in several states. He said these cases were in retaliation for his complaint against Panoli. Justice Nagarathna remarked that citizens must understand the value of freedom of expression. "...why can't the citizens themselves regulate themselves? Citizens must know the value of freedom of speech and expression. If they don't, then the State will step in and who wants the State to step in? Nobody wants the state to step in (sic)," she said. The bench remarked that reasonable restrictions on the right to free speech are needed and it cannot be a "100% absolute right". "Citizens are misusing this freedom. They just press a button and everything is posted online. Why are courts flooded with such cases? Why shouldn't there be guidelines for citizens?" he said. Focus On Free Speech Limits In Social Media Era Strong remarks by the top court judges in cases relating to freedom of speech suggest that the court may have decided, as a whole, to take a strong stand on objectionable social media remarks that often cite freedom of expression to seek legal relief. Earlier, in May, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai took note of objectionable social media posts targeting Justice Surya Kant. The Chief Justice had said the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, but this right comes with reasonable restrictions. NDTV spoke to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on this subject. "Internet as a medium of communication is totally different and distinct from conventional media through which freedom of speech has been exercised so far. The anonymity involved and the rapid global reach and the potential to cause severe personal and societal damage through misuse of social media require a totally different judicial treatment." The Centre's top lawyer said traditional jurisprudence developed for print and electronic media in earlier decades cannot be used to address the challenges posed by social media. "Social Media platforms monetise the addictive nature of the human race and arrogantly refuse to even recognise reasonable restrictions, much less follow even statutory regulations. This results in dangerous consequences. I am sure our judiciary will suitably respond by giving meaningful interpretation to the reasonability of restrictions, as is being done in other countries. Every nation is grappling with this menace. I am sure India will lead in giving a solution to the world through a landmark judgment," Mr Mehta said.
