The Bombay High Court has granted interim protection from arrest to stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, who is facing a criminal case over a satirical video and a comment allegedly targeting Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde. The court protected Kamra from arrest until it delivers its decision on his plea seeking to quash the FIR filed against him.
A division bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice Shriram Modak, after hearing the arguments from both sides, observed, Arguments are concluded. Reserved for orders. In the meantime, as agreed by Shri Venegaonkar, the learned Public Prosecutor, that summons were issued under Section 35(3) BNSS which specifically refers to notice where arrest of person is not required, in that background the questioning of arresting applicant in this particular case does not arise. Matter reserved for orders till then petitioner shall not be arrested.
Kamra had earlier moved the court seeking transit anticipatory bail after an FIR was registered against him at the Khar police station in Mumbai. His interim protection was extended until April 17.
During the hearing, senior advocate Navroz Seervai, appearing for Kamra, strongly argued that the comedian’s satirical video is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech. He asserted that the content did not fall within the exceptions to this right and highlighted past Supreme Court rulings where the Court emphasized the duty to protect the expression of unpopular opinions.
“This is fundamentally a case of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of an artist who happens to be a satirist and a stand-up comedian. Taking everything on face value, it does not come under the offence alleged,” Seervai submitted.
He also pointed out that the Supreme Court has consistently opposed any form of censorship and highlighted the chilling effect created when criminal actions are used to silence artists. Referring to past judgments, including the Bhajan Singh case, Seervai said, “To victimize and almost terrorize a person so that they are hobbled in the exercise of free speech is yet another case of rarest of rare.”
Turning to the police action, Seervai argued that the FIR was filed in haste. As per the timeline presented, the complainant, MLA Murji Kanji Patel, claimed to have seen the video at 9:30 PM on March 23, filed the complaint at 10:45 PM, and the FIR was registered at 11:52 PM. He stressed that the recording of the FIR statement mentions March 23, raising concerns about procedural fairness.
Read Also:- Bombay High Court: Human Teeth Not a 'Dangerous Weapon', Biting Injury Attracts Section 323 IPC, Not 324
Seervai also submitted that for a defamation offence under Section 356(2) BNS, the complaint must be filed by the person who is allegedly defamed. In this case, Deputy CM Eknath Shinde had not filed the complaint himself.
The counsel highlighted that Kamra had been receiving death threats from Shiv Sena workers but, despite this, the police were insisting on his physical presence for the investigation. He criticized the authorities for this approach, noting, “We have also pointed to mechanical and in some cases malafide conduct of police including almost illogical emphasis on his physical presence when he has already said he will answer all questions on VC as he is being threatened.”
Seervai further argued that the police were bound to conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS before registering the FIR, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Imran Pratapgarhi’s case.
Regarding the specific allegations under Section 353(1)(b) BNS, which deals with creating fear or alarm to commit an offence against the State or public tranquility, Seervai maintained that Kamra’s video did not contain any material suggesting such intent. He emphasized that the comedian’s remarks were based on political events that had occurred in Maharashtra two years ago and should be seen as satire.
Addressing the broader issue, Seervai pointed out the double standards in the political reactions to similar remarks. He highlighted that in 2023,
“traitor” a lesson, there was no public outrage or legal action. He contrasted this with the swift police action taken against Kamra, stating, “But a comedian is to be crushed, harassed, terrorized, victimized, and a signal sent out to all artists — that you better watch out if we don’t like it, this is what we will do to you through the police.”
Seervai also mentioned that neither the video’s content was alleged to be a rumour or false statement, nor was there any reasonable likelihood that it could create fear or alarm among the public. He insisted that the effect of such content must be assessed from the standpoint of a reasonable and strong-minded person.
Describing the police investigation as a witch hunt,Seervai criticized the authorities for summoning audience members and production team members multiple times, stating, “This is unprecedented — that you call persons who attended a show in an investigation? You call the team that produced the show over 60 times? This is complete witch hunt!
Kamra’s show, titled 'Naya Bharat,' discussed various political and social issues, including the intolerance shown by the political class towards satire. During the show, Kamra commented on the political developments that led to the resignation of former Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray and the formation of a new government led by Eknath Shinde. Seervai pointed out that these events are part of the public record, including in the case of Subhash Desai v Principal Secretary Government of Maharashtra (2024).
In response, the State’s counsel argued that freedom of speech under Article 19 does not protect statements when a cognizable offence is clearly made out. He claimed that the content of Kamra’s performance was not humorous criticism but “malicious targeting.”
“When an artist or stand-up comedian puts up his piece, his criticism should fall within the tenor of humorous criticism. When you are targeting one individual, it does not fall in the bracket of humorous criticism; it is malicious targeting,” the State’s counsel argued.
The State contended that Kamra, being an experienced artist with a YouTube platform, was fully aware of the impact of his words and the manner in which they were spoken. The counsel further claimed that under the protection of Article 19, no one can lower another person’s dignity, especially a public figure like Eknath Shinde, who also has rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Regarding the accusations under Section 353(2) BNS, the State argued that the video spread false information and created ill will, even claiming that a political party could be considered a ‘community’ under the law because it consists of lakhs of followers who share a common ideology.
