The controversy started during Kamra’s stand-up comedy show “Naya Bharat”, where he performed a parody song that allegedly referred to Deputy CM Eknath Shinde as a “gaddar”.
Bombay: 8th April: On Tuesday, the Bombay High Court asked the Maharashtra government to reply to a petition filed by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra.
Kamra has requested the Court to cancel the First Information Report (FIR) filed against him by the Mumbai Police for calling Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde a “gaddar” (traitor) during his comedy show.
A division bench consisting of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice SM Modak issued a formal notice to the State government and the complainants. The Court then postponed the hearing to April 16 at 2.30 pm for a more detailed discussion.
Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai representing Mr.Kamra :
“I have already sent a legal notice to the State, but the interim protection order has not been uploaded yet. We brought up the matter today, and Your Lordships kindly agreed to hear it.”
The bench asked [After examining the notice] “There seems to be a problem with how the notice was served. Was it actually delivered?”
Court Registry: “It hasn’t been served.”
Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai: “Even though the notice wasn’t properly served, the learned Judge still extended the interim protection. In this situation, I respectfully request a stay on the FIR. But if Your Lordships believe that the interim order already covers the matter, then we leave it to your wisdom.”
Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai: “They should be given some time. My client has not just once, but three times, offered to give a statement through video conferencing, because of real death threats. These threats have even been acknowledged by a judge in the Madras court. But the authorities don’t seem interested in recording his statement. They are insisting he appear in person. Your Lordships may kindly direct that his physical presence should not be mandatory.”
Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai also stated “If Your Lordships wish to adjourn the matter, I have no objection. It would not be proper for me to oppose it. Your Lordships may list it on the 15th or 16th — there are three available days. However, it may not be necessary for him to be physically present.”
The Court adjourned the matter because the Madras High Court had already given anticipatory bail to Kamra till April 17.
Background
The controversy started during Kamra’s stand-up comedy show “Naya Bharat”, where he performed a parody song that allegedly referred to Deputy CM Eknath Shinde as a “gaddar”.
The term was used in reference to Shinde’s defection from Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena to join hands with the BJP, which later led to a split in the Shiv Sena and the formation of a new government under Shinde’s leadership in alliance with the BJP.
Following this, Shiv Sena MLA Muraji Patel filed a complaint, and the Mumbai Police booked Kamra under Sections 353(1)(b), 353(2), and 356(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS). Even though Kamra lives in Tamil Nadu, the FIR was registered in Mumbai.
Kamra, in his petition, said that the FIR was filed very quickly, just 70 minutes after the complaint, and that no proper legal process was followed. He also mentioned that no preliminary enquiry was conducted, as required under Section 173(3) of the BNSS.
Kamra told the Court that this case was violating his constitutional right to freedom of speech.
He also stated that the police were forcing him to appear physically for questioning even though he was receiving death threats. Kamra said he had requested for video conferencing instead, because of these threats. He informed the Court that he had received over 500 threatening emails and messages.
In his plea, Kamra also brought up the issue of audience members being harassed, with some receiving police summons after attending his show. He also said that the venue was vandalised, and even though the police were present, they took no action.
Kamra further argued that the FIR itself had no legal strength, especially under Section 356(2) of the BNSS. According to this section, only the person who is directly affected by the alleged defamation can file a case. In this case, Eknath Shinde has not made any complaint, and the FIR was registered on the complaint of a third party.
The petition stated that “even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at face value, they do not form a cognizable offence under Sections 353(1)(b) and 353(2) of the BNSS.”
Kamra said his speech was not false and “did not amount to a rumour“. He added that there was no intention to cause fear or panic among the public.
As for the charge under Section 353(2) of the BNSS, Kamra argued that his comments were meant to be satirical.
The petition said, “The comments do not promote enmity, hatred or ill will between any groups.”
Since Kamra is a resident of Villupuram, Tamil Nadu, he first approached the Madras High Court for anticipatory bail.
The court had initially granted him protection till April 7, which was later extended till April 17.
The Court scheduled the matter for 2:30 PM on 16 April.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
