Idefamation was a threat to India’s national security, defence, reputation and foreign relations, the country’s first Prime Minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, would refrain from telling cartoonist K. Shankar Pillai – “Don’t spare me, Shankar”.
Recently, access to a 52-second cartoon video purportedly featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi was blocked on social media by online news portal The Wire. The portal said one of its editors was “verbally informed… that the reason for blocking the cartoon was to spread rumours/unverified information that would affect the defence, security, reputation of the country and India’s foreign relations”.
The Editors Guild of India issued a statement saying the incident was “another example of the growing intolerance of commentary and control by the government and its proxies… and serves to tarnish India’s credibility as a welcoming democracy that gives space to media, including satire and humor”.
Legal precedents
The Guild highlighted the government’s “unveiling” of the Information Technology (Intermediate Guidelines and Code of Ethics for Digital Media) Rules 2026, which is set to come into effect on February 20, the day the Global Summit on the Impact of Artificial Intelligence ends in Delhi. The amended rules give social media platforms three hours, a significant reduction from the 24-36 hours under the 2021 rules, to remove content, including synthetically generated, that a court or “competent government” deems illegal.
Meanwhile, the Karnataka High Court recently upheld content blocking portal ‘Sahyog’, the government’s platform for automating the process of sending notices to intermediaries to facilitate the removal or disabling of access to any information, data or communication link that is being used to commit an illegal act.
The High Court rejected an application by X (formerly Twitter) that the portal had circumvented the procedural safeguards that government bodies are required to follow before blocking public access to online content under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act 2000. The social media platform argued that the government was using the “safe harbour” regime to incentivize social media content providers and limit freedom of expression in the blocking.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court in its March 2015 judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India ruled that not only the social media intermediary but also the “originator” of online content must be heard before the government approves blocking.
The Shreya Singhal Verdict held that any blocking of content under Section 69A can be done by the Union Government only for the reasons prescribed in Article 19(2) of the Constitution, such as threat to the security or defense of the country, friendly relations with foreign nations and for the purpose of maintaining public order or prevention of incitement.
The reasons for the blocking order must be in writing and may be reviewed by the committee.
Defining satire
But the question is whether the satire, comedy or work of art is a threat to the national security or defense of the nation. The Supreme Court has consistently held that satire was basically an exaggeration of a particular situation or event beyond normal limits, that it becomes ridiculous, elicits laughter, and in the process exposes certain ills or flaws.
The Supreme Court in Indibily Creative (P) Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal, a 2019 judgment, quoted senior advocate Madhavi Goradia Divan as saying that “satire is a literary genre where topical issues are ridiculed or ironized”. The Supreme Court further noted that satire is one of the most effective art forms in exposing the absurdities, hypocrisies and contradictions of life. The judgment highlighted “satire’s unique ability to make a point quickly and clearly and facilitate understanding in a way that other forms of communication and expression often do not”.
Justice K. Ramaswamy, speaking for the Supreme Court in the 1997 case of DC Saxena v Chief Justice of India, warned the government that “prohibition of freedom of speech and expression on public issues prevents and stifles debate on social, political and economic issues which in the long run threaten community stability and maximize resource and breed revolution more likely”. The Supreme Court in Indably Creative jurisprudence even quoted Albert Camus to defend the freedom of artistic expression through satire and comedy, noting that “art, by virtue of that free essence which I have endeavored to define, unites while tyranny separates. It is therefore not surprising that art should be an enemy marked by every form of oppression”.
In Kama versus M. Jothisorupan, a 2018 judgment of the Madras High Court, a single-judge Bench termed caricature as a close relation of caricature, suggesting deliberate exaggeration to create a satirical effect. Bench called the satirical caricature “actually a weapon of ridicule”. The ruling explained that the appeal of a political caricature or caricature was often based on the exploitation of unfortunate physical features or politically embarrassing events – exploitation that was often calculated to hurt the feelings of the subject of the portrait. The Supreme Court declared that the political cartoon was an “assault weapon”, a bee sting of contempt, mockery and satire. Something that would be least effective if it tried to “pat some politician on the back”.
The right to joke
Globally, courts in democracies allow cartoons and satire greater latitude and tolerate them as an essential component of public life and public opinion.
The Madras High Court mentioned how “an early cartoon depicting George Washington, the father of the USA, as a donkey” came into being.
The Supreme Court has emphasized time and again that the art of satire and caricature must be judged through the eyes of a reasonable person who can laugh at it, as opposed to a “touchy-feely and hypersensitive individual.”
While the Delhi High Court dismissed an injunction against Netflix for streaming online content defamatory of lawyers, it upheld the freedom of a creative artist to “project the image of society in the way he perceives”. He identifies satire as one of the main forms of exposing society’s ills. It highlighted the value of stand-up comedians in society as they use satire and exaggerate ills to the point of being ridiculous.
In a March 2025 verdict, the Supreme Court said that “the 75 years of existence of our republic do not show that we are so insecure in our foundations that a mere recital of a poem or any form of art or entertainment like stand-up comedy can lead to enmity or hatred between different communities”. The observation was part of a verdict that acquitted Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi of spreading communal hatred and communal discord through his poem about “suffering injustice with love”.
In the same month, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Union government on a petition filed by the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) challenging the provisions of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Public Access to Information) Rules, 2009. The petition argues that Rules 8 and 9 allow the government to inform the original creator of online content of a proposed blocking measure. Argued by senior advocate Indira Jaising, the petition said the government could use Rule 9 as an “emergency” provision to block content without a single word for information creators. She argued that Article 16 allows for blanket confidentiality regarding requests, complaints and measures taken to block information.
A similar petition filed by actor Sushant Singh against the 2009 rules was labeled a SFLC petition. The Supreme Court also issued notice in a third petition filed by senior journalist Sanjay Sharma, editor of digital news platform ‘4PM’, against the government’s blocking of his YouTube channel on grounds of national security and public order.