Bombay High Court seeks Maharashtra response on Kunal Kamra plea to quash FIR

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday sought the response of the Maharashtra government to the plea filed by stand up comic Kunal Kamra seeking quashing of the first information report (FIR) registered by the Mumbai Police against him for his ‘gaddar’ (traitor) remark allegedly directed at Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde..A bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice SM Modak issued formal notice to the State and the complainants and posted the case for detailed hearing on April 16 at 2.30 pm.The matter was adjourned in light of the fact that the Madras High Court had already granted Kamra anticipatory bail in the matter till April 17.Kamra had first sought anticipatory bail by moving the Madras High Court since he is a resident of Villupuram in Tamil Nadu.The Madras High Court had granted him anticipatory bail till April 7 which was later extended till April 17.He later moved the Bombay High Court to quash the FIR.When the plea came up for hearing today, the Special Public Prosecutor appearing for State sought time to file a response.Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, appearing for Kamra, said the order passed by the Madras High Court on Monday extending the anticipatory bail has not been published yet on the court website.Hence, he requested the Bombay High Court to hear the quashing plea today."The interim protection order has not been uploaded.. We mentioned and your lords were kind enough to keep it today. Judge there noted defect in service. Then he asked registry people whether the service was effected they said no. Because the notice was not effected learned judge just said.. Interim protection extended.. In this situation I will humbly request a stay on the FIR," he argued.However, if the Court thinks the State should be given time to respond, then Kamra's personal presence must not be insisted by the police since there is a threat to his safety in Maharashtra, Seervai submitted.He also pointed out that Kamra is prepared to respond to police via video conference."My client has not once, not twice but thrice has offered to give a statement via video conference in the light of actual death threats which has been recognised by the judge in Madras. Authorities are not very keen in recording his statement. They want him here (in Mumbai). You lords can say that his physical presence may not be insisted," Seervai said.However, the Court did not pass any order on this aspect but posted the matter for consideration on April 16..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 the BJP. This led to a split in the party and the rise of Shinde’s faction in power through a BJP coalition.Kamra was booked under Sections 353(1)(b), 353(2), and 356(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) after Shiv Sena legislator Muraji Patel filed a complaint. The FIR was lodged in Mumbai, despite Kamra being a resident of Tamil Nadu..According to Kamra’s petition, the FIR was filed hastily, just 70 minutes after the complaint, without a proper legal process, and without a preliminary enquiry as required under Section 173(3) of the BNSS. He told the Court that the FIR was violative of his constitutional right to free speech. Kamra also highlighted the police insistence on his physical presence for questioning, despite ongoing death threats and his requests for video conferencing. Kamra has received over 500 threatening emails and messages.Additionally, Kamra pointed to harassment of audience members from the show, summons issued to them, and a vandalized venue where the police were present but took no action..Pertinently, Kamra argued that the FIR lacks legal merit, particularly under Section 356(2) of the BNSS, which mandates that defamation cases can be initiated only by the person actually aggrieved by the offence and not a third party.In this case, Kamra pointed out that Eknath Shinde has not claimed that he is personally aggrieved and the FIR has been lodged at the instance of someone else.The petition further asserted that even if the allegations in the FIR were taken at face value, they would not constitute a cognizable offense under Sections 353(1)(b) and 353(2) of the BNSS..Specifically, Kamra argued that his speech "was not false nor did it amount to a rumour" and that there was no intent to cause fear or alarm to the public.Regarding the charge under Section 353(2) of the BNSS, the petition emphasised that Kamra’s comments were satirical and intended to ridicule and criticize events in relation to the split of the Shiv Sena.The comments do not promote enmity, hatred or ill will between any groups, Kamra argued.