Mumbai Police have registered an FIR against comedian Kunal Kamra over alleged defamatory remarks against Maharashtra Deputy CM Eknath Shinde during a stand-up performance.
NEW DELHI: Mumbai Police on Monday, March 24, 2025, registered a First Information Report (FIR) against stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, following a complaint lodged by Shiv Sena MLA Murji Patel. The complaint was based on alleged defamatory remarks made by Mr. Kamra against Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde during a recent stand-up comedy performance.
Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar addressed the controversy surrounding comedian Kunal Kamra, stating,
“Nobody should go beyond the law, Constitution, and rules. They should express themselves within their rights.”
He acknowledged differences of opinion but urged restraint, saying,
“There can be differences of opinion, but it should be noted that there need not be unnecessary escalation.”
The controversy began after Kamra’s alleged remarks on Deputy CM Eknath Shinde, leading Shiv Sena MLA Murji Patel to file an FIR and demand an apology within two days, warning,
“Otherwise, he will not be let to move freely in Mumbai.”
Following this, Shiv Sena workers vandalized the Habitat Comedy Club in Khar. Reacting to the incident, Shiv Sena MP Naresh Mhaske accused Kamra of being a “hired comedian,” stating,
“He is making comments on his party leader for some money”
Meanwhile, Shiv Sena leader Shaina NC criticized Kamra, saying,
“You call Maharashtra’s most popular CM and deputy CM ‘gaddaar’ and label it comedy. This isn’t comedy—it’s vulgarity”
She further questioned Kamra’s intentions, alleging,
“Who is this Kunal Kamra, hired by the UBT faction?”
FIR Filed Against Kamra Under BNS Provisions
According to officials from MIDC Police Station, the FIR was registered under sections 353(1)(b) (statements conducing to public mischief) and 356(2) (defamation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
After the FIR was lodged, Mr. Patel emphasized the seriousness of Kamra’s remarks, stating that he expected the comedian to issue an unconditional apology within two days, failing which police action would proceed.
“The statements made about our topmost leader are unacceptable,”
he asserted.
“After reviewing the clip, we approached the MIDC police station late at night to request stringent legal action.”
Violent Reaction: Shiv Sena Members Vandalize Venue
The controversy escalated on Sunday, March 23, 2025, when several Shiv Sena workers ransacked the Habitat Comedy Club in Khar, where Kamra’s performance had taken place. The hotel premises that housed the club were also damaged. In response, Mumbai Police registered a separate FIR against the Shiv Sena workers involved in the attack.
The backlash stemmed from a modified rendition of a Bollywood song in Kamra’s routine, where he allegedly referred to Eknath Shinde as a ‘Gaddar’ (traitor)—a term frequently used by opposition leaders to criticize his political switch from the Uddhav Thackeray-led faction of Shiv Sena to the BJP-led coalition government.
Political Reactions: Shiv Sena Leaders Warn Kamra
Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut posted a clip of Kamra’s performance on social media platform X, captioning it “Kunal Ka Kamal”, which fueled further debate.
In response, Shiv Sena MP Naresh Mhaske issued a stern warning, stating that Kamra would be chased by party workers across the country.
“You will be forced to flee India,” he declared in a video message, further insinuating that Kamra had been paid by Uddhav Thackeray to target Shinde.
Additionally, Shiv Sena leader Shaina NC condemned the comedian’s remarks, posting on X:
“Did not know that you can RENT a comedian and use him as your PUPPET?! Or as a mere diversionary tactic. Kamra’s comment, ‘Meri nazar se tum dekho to gaddar nazar wo aaye,’ is not comedy but vulgarity. He clearly does not understand what it takes for an auto-rickshaw driver to rise through public support and become the CM and Deputy CM of Maharashtra. The Shiv Sena cadre demands legal action against Kunal Kamra.”
Constitutional Perspective: Free Speech, Defamation, and Public Order in the Context of Kunal Kamra’s Case
The FIR against Kunal Kamra raises several constitutional concerns, primarily related to freedom of speech and expression, reasonable restrictions on speech, defamation laws, and the state’s response to political satire. This case provides an opportunity to examine how the Indian Constitution and judicial precedents define the limits of free expression in the context of political commentary.
Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Speech and Expression
Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees every citizen the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. This right includes:
- The ability to express one’s opinions freely through any medium, including speech, writing, print, or artistic performances such as stand-up comedy.
- The right to criticize government policies and public figures, as democracy thrives on open dialogue and public accountability.
- Protection for political satire and artistic expression, which have historically played a crucial role in highlighting issues of public interest.
The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed in multiple judgments that political satire, even if sharp or offensive, is a vital part of free expression. In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989), the Court held that criticism of government and public officials is not defamation unless it includes false statements made with malicious intent.
Similarly, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, ruling that restrictions on free speech must be narrowly interpreted and that mere offense does not justify censorship or criminal action.
Thus, Kamra’s remarks—even if provocative or offensive to some—would typically be protected under Article 19(1)(a) unless they fall under the reasonable restrictions outlined in Article 19(2).
Article 19(2) – Reasonable Restrictions on Free Speech
While Article 19(1)(a) grants free speech, it is not absolute. Article 19(2) provides the grounds on which the government may impose reasonable restrictions, including:
- Defamation (protection of an individual’s reputation)
- Public order (prevention of speech that incites violence or lawlessness)
- Decency or morality
- Security of the state
- Friendly relations with foreign states
- Contempt of court
- Sovereignty and integrity of India
In the case against Kunal Kamra, the FIR invokes defamation (Section 356(2) of BNS) and public mischief (Section 353(1)(b) of BNS), suggesting that the authorities believe his comments exceeded constitutional limits.
Defamation and Article 19(2)
The law of defamation seeks to protect a person’s reputation from false and damaging statements. Under Indian law, defamation can be both a civil and criminal offense. However, for defamation to hold, the complainant (Shiv Sena MLA Murji Patel, in this case) must prove that:
- The statement was false.
- The statement harmed the reputation of the individual or caused a loss of public standing.
- The statement was made with malicious intent rather than as a fair critique.
However, political leaders are public figures and, as per legal precedent, they are expected to tolerate a higher level of scrutiny and criticism. In R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), the Supreme Court ruled that public officials cannot sue for defamation unless the speech contains false information deliberately spread to damage their reputation.
In Kamra’s case, his reference to Eknath Shinde as a ‘Gaddar’ (traitor) is a political opinion rather than a factual assertion. It reflects a viewpoint on Shinde’s defection from the Uddhav Thackeray-led faction of Shiv Sena rather than an outright falsehood.
Thus, while Shinde and his supporters may find Kamra’s statement offensive, it does not necessarily meet the legal threshold for criminal defamation, making the FIR against Kamra potentially unconstitutional.
ALSO READ: ‘Punjab Police Crackdown on Farmers’ : A Test of Article 19 and the Right to Protest
Public Order and Article 19(2)
The FIR also invokes Section 353(1)(b) of BNS, which relates to statements conducing to public mischief. This suggests that authorities believe Kamra’s remarks could incite violence, disrupt law and order, or lead to unrest.
However, courts have repeatedly held that speech must have a direct and imminent connection to violence to be restricted under public order grounds. In Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that the connection between speech and violence must be proximate, not remote or hypothetical.
In Kamra’s case:
- His remarks were made in a comedy club setting, primarily intended for entertainment.
- The Shiv Sena workers’ vandalism at the comedy club was a response to his speech, but courts do not support the “heckler’s veto”, meaning that violent reactions cannot justify censorship.
- The threats issued by Shiv Sena leaders against Kamra, including claims that he will be “chased out of India,” indicate an attempt to silence dissent rather than a legitimate public order concern.
If challenged in court, Kamra could argue that his statements do not directly incite violence, and any disruption caused was due to extraneous factors, not his words.
The “Heckler’s Veto” and Judicial Protection of Free Speech
One of the most critical principles in free speech jurisprudence is the “heckler’s veto”, which refers to situations where a speaker’s rights are curtailed due to violent reactions from those who oppose the speech.
The Supreme Court in Prakash Jha Productions v. Union of India (2011) held that the state has a duty to protect free speech even when certain groups react violently. Authorities cannot suppress speech simply because it provokes strong reactions. Instead, they must take action against those engaging in violence, not the speaker.
In Kamra’s case, the real public order threat came from Shiv Sena members vandalizing property, not from Kamra’s stand-up routine. Thus, under constitutional principles, action should be taken against those who disrupted public order, not the speaker.
A Constitutional Test for Political Satire
The FIR against Kunal Kamra presents a critical test for the interpretation of Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) in the context of political satire and free expression.
- From a constitutional standpoint, his remarks appear to be political speech protected under Article 19(1)(a) rather than defamation or public mischief under Article 19(2).
- Judicial precedent strongly favors political satire, especially when directed at public figures.
- State action should target those engaging in violence (Shiv Sena workers who ransacked the venue) rather than criminalizing political satire.
- If Kamra is prosecuted, it could set a dangerous precedent where comedians, artists, and critics fear legal repercussions for satirizing political figures.
Ultimately, this case could determine whether India upholds the constitutional commitment to free speech or allows political sensitivities to dictate legal action. If challenged in higher courts, Kamra has a strong legal basis to contest the FIR on constitutional grounds.
READ MORE REPORTS ON ARTICLE 19
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
