The Bombay High Court Today (April 25) granted stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra protection from arrest in the FIR filed over his ‘gaddar’ remark on Eknath Shinde. The court ruled that any questioning must happen in Chennai, where Kamra resides.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has given protection from arrest to stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra in the case filed against him by Mumbai Police. This case was about a comment Kamra made during one of his comedy shows where he reportedly called Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde a ‘gaddar’, which means traitor.
This decision came from a Bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and SM Modak.
They said the police can continue their investigation, but if they want to question Kamra, they must do it in Chennai, because Kamra lives in Tamil Nadu. He does not stay in Mumbai.
Kamra had filed a petition asking the High Court to cancel the FIR against him. While the court refused to stop the investigation completely, it made an important direction that if the Mumbai police files a chargesheet while Kamra’s case is still being heard, then the trial court should not take any action against him.
Earlier, on April 16, the court had given temporary protection to Kamra from being arrested. Now, this protection has been made permanent.
The case against Kamra was registered after a complaint by Shiv Sena MLA Muraji Patel. The complaint said that during Kamra’s stand-up show called “Naya Bharat”, he had made a remark calling Eknath Shinde a ‘gaddar’.
This word was taken as a political comment related to Shinde’s decision to leave the Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena and join BJP, which caused a big split in the party and led to a new government forming in Maharashtra.
Because of this, Kamra was booked under Sections 353(1)(b), 353(2), and 356(2) of the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The FIR was registered in Khar police station in Mumbai, even though Kamra lives in Tamil Nadu. At first, the Madras High Court gave him interim protection from arrest, and then he moved the Bombay High Court asking to cancel the FIR.
Kamra’s lawyer, Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, said that the FIR was filed in a hurry and without proper inquiry. He pointed out that the police registered the FIR within just over an hour of getting the information, and called it a “perverse” move showing “non-application of mind.”
He also said that criminal defamation should not be part of an FIR, because defamation is a non-cognizable offence and should be handled only through a private complaint.
Seervai argued that many political leaders, like Ajit Pawar and Uddhav Thackeray, have made similar political comments before, but no FIR was filed against them.
He explained that Kamra’s show was satirical and part of his freedom of speech, which is protected by the Constitution.
He told the court:
“You may not like it. You will be criticised. One judgment says politicians should have thick skin. It can’t be used to crush freedom of speech.”
He also informed the court that Kamra received hundreds of death threats after the controversy started. These included threats of physical harm and posters asking for his execution. Even then, the police wanted him to be physically present for questioning, which raised serious safety concerns.
Seervai also questioned why Section 353 of BNS was applied in this case. This section deals with public alarm or encouraging hatred between groups.
He said:
“There is no identification of groups… All political parties are competitors and behave with malice with each other. They don’t need a stand-up comedian for that,”
-and added that political parties cannot be considered “communities” under that section.
On the other hand, Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar, who was representing the State, defended the FIR. He said Kamra’s comments were not just political jokes, but a targeted attack on a public figure. He also said that initial checks were done before filing the FIR.
Venegaonkar told the court that Kamra’s video caused unrest among the public. He mentioned that there was vandalism at the studio where the show was performed and there were disturbances in Thane district.
He also agreed that defamation under Section 356 is a non-cognizable offence, which must be handled through a private complaint, but insisted that the FIR is valid because it includes other cognizable offences.
When the Court asked about Kamra’s safety, Venegaonkar replied that the State will provide protection if Kamra asks for it.
After listening to all the arguments, the Court reserved its final decision but made sure to give Kamra protection from arrest until the matter is decided.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Pahalgam Kunal Kamra
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
