Bombay High Court grants interim protection from arrest to Kunal Kamra; reserves order on quashing plea

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday granted interim protection from arrest to stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra in the cases registered against him by the Mumbai Police for his ‘gaddar’ (traitor) remark allegedly directed at Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde..A Bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice SM Modak passed the interim direction while reserving its verdict in a plea filed by Kamra seeking quashing of the first information report (FIR) registered against him."In the meantime as agreed by learned public prosecutor that summons was issued under 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Surakshan Sanhita (BNSS) which specifically refers cases where the arrest of persons is not required, the question of arresting the petitioner in FIR does not arise. Matter is reserved for orders. Till then petitioner shall not be arrested," the Court directed..Kamra, during his stand-up show Naya Bharat, performed a parody song that reportedly referred to Deputy CM Eknath Shinde as a 'gaddar' (traitor), alluding to his defection from Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena to join hands with the BJP. This led to a split in the party and the rise of Shinde’s faction to power through a BJP coalition.Kamra was booked under Sections 353(1)(b), 353(2), and 356(2) of the BNS after Shiv Sena legislator Muraji Patel filed a complaint. The FIR was lodged in Mumbai, despite Kamra being a resident of Tamil Nadu..He initially moved the Madras High Court for anticipatory bail since he is a resident of Villupuram in Tamil Nadu. The Madras High Court granted him interim anticipatory bail.He then approached the Bombay High Court with the present plea to quash the FIR.Appearing for Kamra, Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai launched a detailed challenge to the legitimacy and timing of the FIR.He stated that it was filed with “absolutely no preliminary enquiry,” and was registered within 70 minutes of the police receiving information. “The timeline itself is amazing. The FIR was filed on March 23rd at 11:45 PM when the information was received only at 9:30 at night,“This is a case where it is completely perverse and there is non-application of mind,” Seervai said..Seervai also questioned the applicability of criminal defamation through an FIR, arguing that such complaints must be initiated privately and not via the police. “In defamation cases, there can be no FIR and it should be going as a private complaint,” he said. He pointed out that similar language and political jibes had been used by other leaders, such as NCP leader Ajit Pawar and Shiv Sena leader Uddhav Thackeray, without any legal consequences. On the fundamental right to free expression, Seervai argued that the content of Kamra’s show—performed over 60 times since 2024—was satirical, aimed at critiquing the political class and public issues. “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 said. .Seervai also said that following the performance, Kamra has received at least 500 death threats by now. "These are the posters openly put up — ‘Will kill you. Cut into pieces.’ Pictures are being burned. Police know this and yet they are insisting on my physical presence for a stand-up comedy show.”Seervai questioned the foundation of invoking Section 353 of BNS, which pertains to creating enmity or causing alarm to the public. He said there was no mention of public disorder directly linked to the content of the show and argued that the allegations lacked any indication of intent to provoke hostility between communities. “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.”He further submitted that the term "community" in the context of Section 353(2) could not be extended to political parties..Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar, appearing for the State, defended the registration of the FIR and the invocation of the sections applied. “If your Lordships have a look at the excerpts, it's a criticism of an individual — the Deputy CM — and therefore by no stretch of imagination can it be called a political satire. It does not sound to be political satire or even that he is making an opinion of decisions taken by the Deputy CM. We should make a differentiation between humorous criticism and malicious targeting.”Venegaonkar submitted that a preliminary verification had in fact been done prior to filing the FIR. “Between 10:45 on 23rd March to 11:52 PM, my instructions are that the complainant showed the link. He heard the clip. The officer verified whether it’s also on the official page of Kunal Kamra. So he did the preliminary enquiry,” he contended..The video had consequences beyond mere speech, he said, “An alarm was caused, inducing public to vandalise the studio for which separate offence is registered. Also, incidents occurred in Thane district which were also reported to the police.” Venegaonkar argued that political parties sharing common ideology could be construed as a “community” under the sectionOn the defamation charge under Section 356, which is a non-cognizable offence, Venegaonkar acknowledged that only a person with standing can initiate a private complaint, not the police. However, he maintained that the FIR was legally tenable as part of a bundle of offenses. .In response to the Court’s query about Kamra’s safety while recording his statement, Venegaonkar said, “The State has responsibility to all citizens. Whatever threats he has received, we will protect him as long as he asks.” The Court then proceeded to reserve its verdict while granting interim protection from arrest to Kamra.Read more about today's hearing here.