Kunal Kamra moves HC to dismiss FIR insult case.
Kunal Kamra failed to show up before the Mumbai Police on Saturday, despite being summoned for the third time in connection with the case. Authorities had issued multiple notices for his appearance, but the comedian once again did not comply. His repeated absence has raised concerns among officials handling the investigation. This latest no-show adds to the ongoing tension surrounding the FIR filed against him, which Kamra is currently challenging in the Bombay High Court.
Stand-up comic Kunal Kamra has approached the Bombay High Court seeking the dismissal of an FIR filed against him by the Mumbai Police. The FIR was registered following his alleged use of an offensive remark about Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde during a comedy performance.
According to the High Court’s official website, Kamra submitted his petition on April 5, asserting that the FIR infringes upon his constitutional rights. The plea invokes Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee the right to freedom of speech and expression, the right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation or trade, and the right to life and personal liberty, respectively.
The matter has been scheduled for hearing on April 21 before a division bench comprising Justices Sarang V. Kotwal and Shriram M. Modak, as reflected on the court’s case status portal.
The case stems from a complaint filed by Shiv Sena MLA Murji Patel, who alleged that Kamra made derogatory and defamatory remarks targeting Deputy CM Shinde during one of his stand-up shows. The performance in question took place at Habitat Studio, located inside the Unicontinental Hotel in the Khar area of Mumbai.
Following the complaint, the MIDC Police Station registered a First Information Report on March 24, invoking several sections of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS). These include Sections 353(1)(b) and 353(2), which pertain to statements that may incite public mischief, as well as Section 356(2), which deals with defamation.
After initially registering the Zero FIR, the MIDC police transferred the case to the Khar Police Station for further investigation.
According to Patel’s complaint, Kamra not only attacked the moral character of Shinde through his jokes but also stirred animosity between rival political parties. He alleged that Kamra’s statements were designed to provoke discord by ridiculing the values and sentiments held by his party and their political adversaries.
In response, Kamra has turned to the judiciary, arguing that his jokes fall within the scope of protected artistic expression and should not be criminalized. His petition contends that the FIR is not only unwarranted but also represents an attempt to stifle dissent and criticism under the guise of maintaining public order.
Legal experts familiar with the matter note that this is not the first time Kamra has faced legal trouble over his outspoken comedic material. Known for his politically charged humor and unapologetic style, Kamra has previously been in the spotlight for making pointed comments on political figures and national issues.
While the Bombay High Court considers Kamra’s petition, another related legal development had taken place last month. The Madras High Court granted Kamra interim anticipatory bail until April 7, providing him temporary relief in connection with the same FIR lodged in Mumbai. This legal protection was given to ensure that he wouldn’t face immediate arrest while his plea for dismissal is under judicial consideration.
The case has reignited discussions around the boundaries of free speech, particularly when it comes to satire, comedy, and political commentary. Supporters of Kamra argue that comedians should be granted more latitude to critique public figures without fear of criminal prosecution, especially in a democratic setup where freedom of expression is a fundamental pillar.
Critics, however, argue that speech—even in the name of comedy—must be responsible and respectful, particularly when addressing elected representatives. They believe that Kamra crossed a line by allegedly defaming a sitting Deputy Chief Minister and stirring political tensions through his act.
This incident comes at a time when Indian comedians are increasingly finding themselves under scrutiny and, in some cases, facing legal action for their performances. The entertainment and civil liberties communities have voiced concern over what they perceive as a rising trend of censorship and intimidation aimed at silencing political commentary.
In Kamra’s plea, the comedian has requested that the court consider not only the content and context of his performance but also the larger implications of criminalizing comedy. He has argued that initiating criminal proceedings over artistic expression poses a threat to democracy and risks setting a dangerous precedent that could be used to muzzle dissent.
As the court date approaches, the case is being closely followed by legal analysts, artists, and rights activists. The verdict could have implications beyond Kamra’s personal legal battle, potentially shaping the limits of free speech and artistic liberty in India.
For now, Kunal Kamra remains free under the protection of interim bail, but the larger question remains unresolved: where should the line be drawn between legitimate satire and criminal defamation in the world of political comedy?