Cartoonists are part of the press: Kerala High Court frowns upon hypercritical Malayalis

The Kerala High Court recently held that cartoonists are part and parcel of the press and are, therefore, entitled to freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. [Mammen Varghese & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr].Justice PV Kunhikrishnan noted that an effective caricature created by cartoonists with observation skills, creativity, technical skills and knowledge of current events and cultural conflicts, can create powerful visual commentary that engage, provoke and inspire the masses.The judge also reflected on India's rich tradition of cartoonists and the respect they used to enjoy even from the very leaders they used to caricaturise, including former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru."R.K. Laxman, Shankar, O.V. Vijayan etc., are some of the famous Indian Cartoonists. Pandit Jawaharalal Nehru, the First prime Minister of India was known for his appreciation of Cartoonist Shankar’s work...Panditji once said 'Don’t spare me Shankar' encouraging the Cartoonist to continue his sharp criticism through his art. Panditji believed that Cartoons like Shankar’s played a vital role in a democratic society holding leaders accountable and sparking important discussions. Therefore, the Cartoonists are also part and parcel of the press and media, and the cartoonists are also entitled to the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution," the Court's judgment stated. However, the Court clarified that this freedom of expression is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which permits the State to impose limitations in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, etc. .The judgment was passed on a petition moved by the printer, publisher and several editors of leading Malayalam daily Malayala Manorama, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them over a cartoon depicting Mahatma Gandhi and the National Flag.The case was instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the General Secretary of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Edakkad Area Committee, alleging that the cartoon published on the occasion of India's 70th Independence day was offensive. The cartoon shows Gandhi and the National Flag drawn in a manner to resemble the number 70. The issue was that the top of the flag, which is saffron in colour, was outlined in black. The complainant alleged that this black line was added to purposefully dishonour the national flag. A case was registered against them for offences punishable under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.The petitioners opposed these allegations submitting that there was no intention to dishonour the national flag and pointed out that the cartoon was published alongside several articles celebrating India's achievements since 1947. .The Court went through the page on which the cartoon was printed and ultimately concluded that there was no intention to insult national honour."Unless there is a deliberate action with an intention to insult the national honour, the provisions of the Act 1971 is not attracted...I am of the considered opinion that it is one of beautiful picturisation of the 70th Independence Anniversary for which the cartoonist deserves encomium," the Court said. While quashing the proceedings against the petitioners, the Court also frowned upon the prosecution for trying to dig for negative aspects in a newspaper instead of appreciating it for celebrating the freedom struggle. Justice Kunhikrishnan said that this kind of hypercritical approach is reminiscent of a scene from Fahad Faasil starter Njan Prakashan where the protagonist, after eating copious amounts of a sadya (traditional Malayalam feast) and clearly enjoying it, starts nitpicking about the individual dishes. "There is a Malayalam word “ദോഷൈകദൃക്ക്” (Doshaikadrik) which means a person who sees only the evil side of things. The word is almost similar to the English word, 'hypercritical'...I leave it there without blaming anybody because there is a person like "ദോഷൈകദൃക്ക്" in all our minds. Our effort should be to restrain such behaviour.".The petitioners were represented by Advocate Millu Danadapaani.The complainant was represented by Advocate Prathap SRK.Senior Public Prosecutor Sangeetharaj NR appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]