In his latest run-in with the law, stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra faces five cases in Maharashtra for allegedly calling the State’s Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde a gaddar (traitor) in a parody song..From railing against politicians to confronting a news anchor on a plane, from criticising courts and judges to championing free speech online, Kamra is no stranger to controversy. Here are the four instances of Kamra's previous encounters with the law, how the courts dealt with those cases and where they stand today. .Judging the judges.In 2020, Kamra courted controversy for his tweet in which he was seen holding up his fingers while in an aircraft with the text: "One of these 2 fingers is for [then] CJI [Chief Justice of India] Arvind Bobde...ok let me not confuse you it’s the middle one."In a separate instance, he criticised then Supreme Court judge Justice DY Chandrachud (who would later become the CJI), after he granted bail to Republic Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami in an abetment to suicide case. His tweet said: “(CJI) DY Chandrachud is a flight attendant serving champagne to first class passengers after they’re fast tracked through, while commoners don’t know if they’ll ever be boarded or seated, let alone served.”Another contempt of court petition came to be filed against his statement that the apex court is a "Brahmin-Baniya" affair.In yet another instance, he posted a morphed image of the Supreme Court building with an orange shade with a BJP flag hoisted on the top court’s foyer. All these cases were combined and heard by the apex court. However, Kamra was defiant. He refused to apologise and said his jokes could not shake the judiciary’s foundations. The Supreme Court records show that Kamra was issued a contempt of court notice on December 18, 2020. The cases were listed for hearing seven times. On January 5, 2023, then CJI DY Chandrachud recused himself since he authored one of the judgments criticised by the comedian. The cases came up for hearing again on January 23 of that year and was adjourned for a week. Since then, the matters have not been listed. .Waving the flag of dissent.When Kamra tweeted a picture of a morphed, saffron-coloured Supreme Court and replaced the National Flag with that of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), an advocate filed a complaint against him in a Varanasi court. The advocate, Saurabh Tiwari, sought a first information report (FIR) against Kamra, contending that the comic’s tweet hurt the feelings of the people of the country and caused “contempt and disrepute” to the Indian National Flag. However, the case was rejected by a Varanasi magistrate for want of jurisdiction. Tiwari filed a revision against the order, but the district judge remained unconvinced and upheld the magistrate’s order. .Flight and fight.In January 2020, Kamra confronted Republic TV editor Arnab Goswami on an IndiGo flight, questioning his journalism and calling him a “coward”. He recorded the video and posted it on social media. Within hours, there was a furore. While many supported the comedian, others criticised his conduct. Kamra was subsequently banned from flying IndiGo for six months and was intimated of the same via a tweet from the airline's handle. Shortly thereafter, other airlines including GoAir, Air India and Spice Jet also placed Kamra on their no-fly lists. He sued the airlines and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), arguing that the travel ban imposed on him violated the Civil Aviation Rules, because the punishment was imposed without following the due process of establishing an Internal Committee etc. This writ petition was disposed of by the Delhi High Court with a direction to the DGCA to consider Kamra's representation within eight weeks.Later, IndiGo's Internal Committee found Kamra guilty of a level 1 offence and banned him from flying for three months. Vistara also banned him till April 27, 2020 following the decision of its Internal Committee. Aggrieved by the fact that all major airlines of the country had banned him from flying, Kamra moved a second writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The High Court refused to entertain the petition, but permitted him to move the appropriate appellate authority for redressal..Standing up for free speech.Kamra was one of the lead petitioners in the case against the changes made by the Central government to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules in the year 2023. Under the new law, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology could notify a fact-checking body, empowered to identify and tag what it considers false or fake online news with respect to any activity of the Central government.Kamra, along with the Editors Guild of India, the Association of India Magazines and the News Broadcast and Digital Association, challenged the law before the Bombay High Court, arguing that it violates the right to free speech and will have a chilling effect.On January 31, 2024, the High Court delivered a split verdict. While Justice GS Patel struck down the law, Justice Neena Gokhale declared it constitutional.The case was then referred to a third judge. However, the Court refused to stay the setting up of fact-check units in the meantime. This led to Kamra and others approaching the Supreme Court, which granted an injunction in their favour. Finally, on September 20, 2024, the tie-breaker judge in the Bombay High Court Justice AS Chandurkar delivered his verdict in the petitioners' favour and struck down the law. "Literature including poetry, dramas, films, stage shows including stand-up comedy, satire and art, make the lives of human beings more meaningful. The Courts are duty-bound to uphold and enforce fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.".While the Madras High Court has granted Kamra interim anticipatory bail till April 7 in the latest case against him, it seems that the issue is far from over.Whatever the outcome of the case, it does not seem as though the comedian is done with speaking truth to power through his comedy.In fact, the Supreme Court itself recently upheld his right to do so. In a judgment seemingly addressing legal issues faced by Kamra and other content creators, the Court had said,"75 years into our republic, we cannot be seen to be so shaky on our fundamentals that mere recital of a poem or for that matter, any form of art or entertainment, such as, stand-up comedy, can be alleged to lead to animosity or hatred amongst different communities. Subscribing to such a view would stifle all legitimate expressions of view in the public domain which is so fundamental to a free society.".Idea that art or stand-up comedy can lead to hatred will stifle free speech: Supreme Court.A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan further held,"Sometimes, we, the Judges, may not like spoken or written words. But, still, it is our duty to uphold the fundamental right under Article 19 (1)(a). We Judges are under an obligation to uphold the Constitution and respect its ideals. If the police or executive fail to honour and protect the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution, it is the duty of the Courts to step in and protect the fundamental rights."
