On the importance of satire

Justice K. Ramaswamy, speaking for the Supreme Court Bench in the 1997 caselaw of D.C. Saxena versus Chief Justice of India cautioned the government that “prohibition of freedom of speech and expression on public issues prevents and stifles the debate on social, political and economic questions which in the long term endangers the stability of the community and maximises the source and breeds for more likely revolution”. The Supreme Court, in the Indibly Creative caselaw, had even quoted Albert Camus to defend the freedom of artistic expression through satire and comedy, noting that “art, by virtue of that free essence I have tried to define, unites whereas tyranny separates. It is not surprising, therefore, that art should be the enemy marked out by every form of oppression”.

In Kama versus M. Jothisorupan, a 2018 judgment of the Madras High Court, the single judge Bench termed a cartoon as a close relation of caricature, implying a deliberate exaggeration intended to produce satirical effect. The Bench termed a satirical cartoon as “intrinsically a weapon of ridicule”. The judgment explained that the appeal of the political cartoon or caricature was often based on exploitation of unfortunate physical traits or politically embarrassing events — an exploitation often calculated to injure the feelings of the subject of the portrayal. The High Court said the political cartoon was a “weapon of attack”, a bee sting of scorn, ridicule and satire. Something which would be least effective if it tried to “pat some politician on the back”.

The right to poke fun

Globally, courts in democracies have entitled cartoons and satire with greater latitude, tolerating them as an essential ingredient of public life and opinion.

The Madras High Court referred to how there was an “early cartoon portraying George Washington, the father of USA, as an ass”.

The Supreme Court has, time and again, underscored that the art of satire and cartoons have to be evaluated through the eyes of a reasonable person who could laugh it off, unlike a “touchy and hyper-sensitive individual”.

The Delhi High Court, while dismissing a plea for injunction against Netflix for streaming online content derogatory to lawyers, had championed the liberty of a creative artist to “project the picture of the society in a manner he perceives”. It termed satire as one of the prime forms of exposing the ills of the society. It underscored the value of stand-up comedians in society as they use satire and exaggerate the ills to an extent that it becomes ridiculous.

The top court, in a March 2025 verdict, said “75 years into our Republic, we cannot be seen to be so shaky on our fundamentals that a mere recital of a poem, or for that matter, any form of art or entertainment, such as, stand-up comedy, can be alleged to lead to animosity or hatred amongst different communities”. The observation was part of a judgment which found Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi innocent of spreading communal hate and communal discord through his poem on “suffering injustice with love”.

The same month saw the Supreme Court issue notice to the Union government on a petition filed by Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) challenging provisions of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. The petition has argued that Rules 8 and 9 make it optional for the government to inform the original creator of the online content about the proposed blocking action. The petition, argued by senior advocate Indira Jaising, said the government could use Rule 9 as an “emergency” provision to block content with hardly a word to the creator of the information. It contended that Rule 16 facilitated a blanket confidentiality regarding requests, complaints and actions taken for blocking information.

A similar petition filed by actor Sushant Singh challenging the 2009 Rules has been tagged with the SFLC petition. The Supreme Court has also issued notice in a third petition filed by senior journalist Sanjay Sharma, editor of the digital news platform ‘4PM’, against the blocking of his YouTube channel by the government on grounds of national security and public order.