In a significant relief to comedian Kunal Kamra, the Bombay High Court on Friday, April 25, directed the Mumbai Police not to arrest him in connection with an FIR filed over his alleged remarks on Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde during a recent comedy performance. However, the Court allowed the investigation to continue and directed that the trial court shall not take cognizance of the chargesheet if filed during the pendency of the petition.
A division bench comprising Justices Sarang Kotwal and Shriram Modak passed the order while hearing Kamra’s plea for protection from arrest. The Court also noted that the police should coordinate with local authorities in Villupuram, Tamil Nadu, where Kamra currently resides, if they wish to record his statement.
The FIR against Kamra was lodged by Shiv Sena MLA Muraji Patel under Sections 353(1)(b), 353(2) (public mischief), and 356(2) (defamation) of the BNS. The case was later transferred to Khar Police Station in Mumbai. Although Kamra did not mention Shinde by name in the performance, he was accused of calling the Deputy CM a “gaddar” (traitor), referencing the political split within the Shiv Sena.
Kamra’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, argued that the video was an act of satire protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, emphasizing that it did not fall under the exceptions for hate speech or defamation. Seervai warned against using legal machinery to “terrorize artists” and pointed to the Imran Pratapgadhi vs State of Gujarat case where the Supreme Court underscored the importance of protecting freedom of speech.
Seervai also noted that Kamra had received death threats from Shiv Sena supporters following the video, and that the police were demanding his personal presence despite safety concerns.
On the State’s side, Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar argued that the performance amounted to “malicious targeting” rather than protected satire, claiming it lowered Shinde’s dignity. He contended that public figures, too, are entitled to protection under Article 21, and parody must not devolve into personal attacks.
The case has stirred national debate around artistic freedom and political criticism, especially in a politically sensitive environment. A detailed copy of the High Court’s order is awaited.
