Senior Congress leader Abhishek Singhvi weighed in on the controversy surrounding comedian Kunal Kamra, criticizing the Maharashtra government’s crackdown on satire. Taking to his social media platform ‘X’, Singhvi remarked, “Maharashtra politics now has a new crime—comedy!” He condemned the vandalism, threats, and calls for an apology, highlighting how satire seems to offend more than scams. His statement has reignited the debate on freedom of speech and the growing intolerance towards political humor in India.
Mumbai: In Maharashtra, it appears that humor has become a more serious offense than corruption. Stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra recently stirred controversy with a joke that didn’t resonate well with the ruling powers.
This led to a swift political backlash, including demands for an apology, vandalism at the venue of his show, and even open threats. Ironically, while scams and governance failures often go unchecked, mockery seems to be treated as a grave transgression.
Senior Congress leader Abhishek Singhvi took to his social media platform ‘X’ to comment on the situation, stating,
“Maharashtra politics now has a new crime—comedy! #KunalKamra cracks a joke, & govt cracks down. Vandalism, threats & calls for apology, seems like satire hurts more than scams! Maybe the state should invest in a sense of humor; laughter, after all, is the best cure for fragile egos!”
Kamra is recognized for his incisive wit and political commentary, frequently targeting those in authority. In a democratic society, comedy should serve as a means of reflection rather than a threat to order.
However, the increasing political intolerance towards dissenting voices is alarming. When jokes attract more scrutiny than policy failures, it reveals a disturbing trend of Inconsistent priorities.
The incident involving Kamra is not an isolated case. Artists, writers, and comedians across India are facing escalating pressure from political factions offended by Sarcasm.
From Munawar Faruqui’s arrest for a joke he never made to FIRs against cartoonists and filmmakers, the message is unmistakable mocking power can come at a high cost.
This raises the question: why are politicians, who ought to be accountable to the public, so easily upset?
Although freedom of expression is a constitutional right, its uneven application highlights the increasing vulnerability of political figures. If the Maharashtra government devoted even half as much effort to effective governance as it does to policing humor, the state would be significantly better off.
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).
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.
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
