While the Mumbai Police have reportedly issued summons to Kunal Kamra over a defamation case linked to his video on YouTube, the stand-up comedian has so far refused to apologise for his remarks. Kamra has also released a new clip to take a dig at Shiv Sainiks who vandalised The Habitat Comedy Club.
Kamra’s new stand-up routine had taken jibes at political defections in Maharashtra, including a parody song on deputy CM Eknath Shinde, with Shiv Sainiks later vandalising the venue where the act was recorded. Newslaundry had earlier detailed the controversy, the FIRs, and what exactly happened at The Habitat Comedy Club which now stands shut.
Meanwhile, editorials in most prominent English dailies have taken a strong view on the controversy.
In an editorial on Wednesday, The Hindu pointed to a display of power being “weaponised”. “The Mumbai police booked Mr. Kamra under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) related to promoting enmity and causing public mischief, as well as defamation. However, it is well-established that defamation charges can only be initiated by the aggrieved party, and not by the police. In a now-familiar display of power being weaponised, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) conveniently discovered unauthorised structures outside the venue and demolished them, continuing to probe for further ‘irregularities’. The first information report against Mr. Kamra appears to be a clear misuse of laws meant to address divisive speech. It essentially criminalises satire directed at a public figure’s political actions. Politicians being labelled as traitors or turncoats after switching parties is hardly new — ironically, Ajit Pawar of the Nationalist Congress Party, who once used the same term, now serves alongside Mr. Shinde as Deputy Chief Minister.”
The Telegraph said the episode “lays bare one sorry fact: Indian democracy’s tryst with freedom of speech remains inconclusive”. “Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution vests all citizens with the right to freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court has also repeatedly pushed back against attempts on the part of the State to encroach upon this precious constitutional provision. It is equally true that this right is not absolute; it comes with reasonable restrictions pertaining to the grounds of decency, morality, security and so on. In light of events, such as the one that unfolded in Mumbai, it must be asked whether these restraints are being adhered to by the State in their rightful spirit. This is because the weaponisation of the restraints on the freedom of expression by India’s political fraternity has led, quite often, to the choking of criticism, be it satirical or in the form of dissent. The minders of a mature democracy should be able to laugh at themselves. That is not the case in India where the right to free expression remains a work in progress.”
The Deccan Herald said it is not for the chief minister to judge whether a comic act is low or high in content. “Fadnavis’ words show the misconceptions of the political class about freedom of expression – ‘Freedom should not be unrestrained behaviour... No one has the right to do such low-level comedy and disrespect the former chief minister, deputy chief minister, and senior leaders of the state, who are respected by the people of the state.’ Politicians only invite disrespect by demanding praise and respect. It is not for the chief minister to judge whether a comic act is high or low in content. Even ‘low level’ comedy has its place and can have its rightful platform for expression. It is surprising to note that a chief minister who should protect free speech should want a citizen to apologise for exercising his right.”
In an editorial on Tuesday, The Indian Express noted that comedy finds itself increasingly at odds with political and social forces that seek to muzzle criticism and dissent. “From its run-ins with artistes such as Pralhad Keshav Atre and Pu La Deshpande to the current episode, the Shiv Sena has had a problematic relationship with freedom of expression. At a time when technology is collapsing walls, making it easier to widen access and reach global audiences, the shrinking space in this country for comedy, once a sanctuary for irreverence and social critique, presents a sobering contradiction. Rather than embracing the diversity of thought and free speech that new media facilitates, and notwithstanding landmark judicial pushback against state encroachment on freedom of speech and expression in the 2015 Shreya Singhal vs Union of India judgment, in the last few years, India has witnessed a steady erosion of such freedoms, with numerous instances of legal cases, censorship, and threats against performers and artists. From the defamation lawsuit against comedian Vir Das after his performance at the Kennedy Centre in Washington DC in 2021, in which he spoke about ‘two Indias’, to bans on Munawar Faruqui’s shows for ‘offensive’ content, to the threats against Agrima Joshua for a 2019 act, comedy finds itself increasingly at odds with political and social forces that seek to muzzle criticism and dissent. The state takes the most restrictive view and civil society retreats into evasion or silence.”
The Times Of India, in its editorial published on Tuesday, criticised the legal process that follows such cases. “Aside from the problems with criminal defamation law as well as the vagueness inherent in defining ‘public mischief’, why are cops filing these cases? That should be the business of persons who feel wrongly targeted. And if third persons find the jokes offensive, say ‘classist’ or ‘elitist’, again why would cops carry their cudgels?
But it’s not just cops, even courts sometimes seem to side less with the spirit of the Constitution’s free speech protection. In the Allahbadia case the SC observed at one point that, “If you can try to attain cheap publicity by saying these kind of things, there might be others also who might want to get cheap publicity by making threats.” This is a false equivalence. Free speech may offend some but unless it’s judicially determined as falling foul of ‘reasonable restrictions’, neither police/govts nor mobs have a role to play.”
At Newslaundry, we believe in holding power to account. Our journalism is truly in public interest – funded by our subscribers, not by ad revenue from corporates and governments. You can help. Click here and join the tribe that pays to keep news free.
Newslaundry is a reader-supported, ad-free, independent news outlet based out of New Delhi. Support their journalism, here.
