BREAKING | Bombay HC Grants Interim Protection From Arrest To Kunal Kamra Till Decision On Plea To Quash FIR

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (April 16) granted interim protection from arrest to comedian Kunal Kamra in his plea for quashing an FIR lodged against him following his satirical video and "gaddar" comment purportedly made against Maharashtra's Deputy CM Eknath Shinde.Granting protection from arrest to Kamra and reserving order on the plea, a division bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice Shriram Modak in its order dictated, "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". In the previous hearing, the high court had asked the State to get instructions on Kamra's plea. Notably, the Madras High Court on April 7 extended Kamra's interim protection till April 17, before which the comedian had moved seeking transit anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR lodged against him at Mumbai. During the hearing, senior advocate Navroz Seervai made the following submissions on behalf of Kamra. Falls within Article 19 The counsel argued that the comedy clip falls within freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. He argued that it did not fall within the exceptions to freedom of speech. He submitted that the Supreme Court has, on various occasions, set aside improper attempts at censorship as mere threats of criminal action lead to self-censorship and create a chilling effect. He stated that the FIR against Kamra exemplify an "attempt by the State at the behest of a political party to make an example of an artist". He relied on the case of Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362), where the Supreme Court underscored the importance of protecting the freedom of speech and expression and reminded the Courts and the Police of their duty to uphold the rights of persons expressing unpopular opinions."This is fundamentally a case of freedom of speech under A 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 offence alleged. Other aspect, ref in several judgments including case of a poet in SC, is machinery of law used by persons who take umbridge at exercise of free speech. It does not fall foul of A 19(2)…to victimize and almost terrorize a person so that they are hobbled in exercise of free speech is yet another case of rarest of rare mentioned in Bhajan Singh (SC)," Seervai said. He said that all illegal and improper attempts at censorship are repelled by Supreme Court and the mere threat of criminal action leads to self censorship having a chilling effect. On Police actionSeervai submitted that as per the complaint made by MLA Murji Kanji Patel, he lodged the complaint for the reason that Kamra's speech would create hostility between two political parties. Highlighting the timeline of registering the FIR, Serervai said that the complainant received the comedy video on his phone on March 23 at 9:30pm, made a complaint at 10:45 pm and the FIR was filed at 11:52 pm; and the next day summons were issued. He said “Even if we take that FIR is registered on 11:55 the morning of March 24 even then my argument remains that it was filed in haste. We said this bcoz statement recording on FIR mentions March 23.”The counsel argued that the police did not apply their mind while registering the FIR. He submitted for 356(2) BNS for defamation, the person alleged to be defamed (Eknath Shinde) did not file the complaint.The counsel highlighted that Kamra received several death threats from Shiv Sena workers. He stated that despite threats against Kamra, the police demanded his personal presence for the investigation. “We have also pointed to mechanical and in some cases malafide conduct of police including almost illogical emphasis on his (Kamra's) physical presence when he has already said he will answer all questions on VC as he is being threatened.”The counsel further argued that before registration of the FIR, a preliminary inquiry was required to be conducted by the police as per Section 173(3) BNSS. Referring to Supreme Court's decision in Imran Pratapgarhi's case, the counsel said that the first stage before registration of FIR would be preliminary inquiry.No intent to create fear or alarm to publicOn the charge of Section 353 (1)(b) BNS, which relates to intent to cause fear or alarm to the public to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility, the counsel argued that ex facie the contents of the video do not show commission of the offence. Stating that the comedy show of factual events which had taken place in Maharashtra which took place 2 years ago does not come under Section 353 (1)(b) BNS, the counsel...

BREAKING | Bombay HC Grants Interim Protection From Arrest To Kunal Kamra Till Decision On Plea To Quash FIR

Malavika Prasad

Tags