In a packed courtroom of Justice Kotwal and Justice Modak, after hearing the arguments at length, they granted Comedian Kunal Kamra interim protection from arrest in connection with a petition he filed seeking to quash an FIR registered against him. The FIR stemmed from a satirical video he posted, which included the term “gaddar” (traitor), allegedly directed at Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde.

Kamra's Contentions and Defense

Appearing for Kamra, Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai submitted that the videoclip in question was an exercise of free speech and artistic liberty, protected under Article 19(1)(a). He argued that the remarks did not constitute false information, nor did they identify or malign any specific group under BNSS Section 353. Rather, it reflected facts already in public discourse—such as the Deputy CM's visit to Guwahati—and the usage of the remark “Traitor” has been said by his own political frenemies, Mr.Ajit Pawar and Mr.Uddhav Thackeray, whose entire campaign strategy revolved around the said word.

1.On Section 353(1)(b)(Public Mischief): Petitioner’s Counsel submitted that the video posted by Kamra depicted no rumor or falsehood, the allegation that the video incited fear or endangered public order was baseless, especially as the show had been performed in over 60 venues across the country without any incident.
 

2.On Section 353(2): Petitioner’s Counsel emphasized that there was no targeting of identifiable groups and the rivalry between political parties is inherent and doesn’t need stand-up comedy to inflame it. He also strongly criticized the use of criminal law to clamp down on satire, calling it an attack on free speech.
 

3.Section 356 (Defamation): Petitioner’s counsel contended that no direct defamation occurred against the complainant, and as the person allegedly defamed was not the complainant himself (i.e., not Deputy CM Shinde), a defamation claim could not stand. Moreover, defamation is typically a matter for private complaint, meaning a third party can not file a complaint on behalf of the actual aggrieved person.
 

Sr. Adv. Seervai closed by remarking on the broader implications for democratic freedoms, stating that even after 75 years of independence, law enforcement authorities continue to misuse or ignore fundamental rights.

State's Response

Representing the State, the prosecution argued that the video potentially disturbed public tranquility, evidenced by political workers' anger and resultant vandalism. On the arguments presented by Petitioner’s Counsel with respect to defamation, the State agreeing with the procedural requirement of a private complaint, also submitted that in such a case an investigation can be done but it is upon the Court to not take the cognizance but the police have the authority to investigate.

Regarding Kamra’s reference to similar comments by Mr. Ajit Pawar and Mr. Uddhav Thackeray, the prosecution countered that prior non-action does not preclude prosecution in the present case. It further claimed that the satire lacked “dignity” and amounted to character assassination, thereby making the act a malicious target and not a humorous criticism.

The Court’s Observations and Interim Relief

The Court noted that arrest was not necessary, especially in light of the first summons being issued under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, which does not mandate arrest. Accordingly, interim protection from arrest was granted to Kamra.

Case Title: Kunal Kamra v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., WP/2053/2025

Order of interim relief is awaited.