The Bombay High Court on April 25, 2025, granted protection from arrest to stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra in the criminal case registered against him by the Mumbai Police over remarks made during his comedy show Naya Bharat, in which he referred to Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde as a gaddar (traitor). The Bench comprising Justices Sarang Kotwal and SM Modak made it clear that Kamra shall not be arrested while his petition seeking quashing of the FIR is pending before the High Court.
While the Court did not stay the investigation, it directed the police that if they intend to question Kamra, they must do so in Chennai, where Kamra currently resides. Notably, as per the report of LiveLaw, the Court also clarified that if a chargesheet is filed during the pendency of Kamra’s quashing plea, the trial court shall not proceed against him until the High Court has decided the matter. The order made permanent the interim protection that had been granted to Kamra earlier on April 16.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, representing Kamra, argued that the FIR was a direct attack on the comedian’s constitutional right to free speech, guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. As per the report of Bar and Bench, he maintained that the impugned remarks were part of a larger political satire, a form of commentary that has long been protected in democratic societies. According to Seervai, the term gaddar was used in reference to the 2022 split in the Shiv Sena, when Eknath Shinde and a group of MLAs broke away from the Uddhav Thackeray-led faction and aligned.
Court’s key rulings and procedural safeguards
- Kamra shall not be arrested in connection with the FIR during the pendency of his petition.
- The Mumbai Police is permitted to continue the investigation but must question Kamra only in Chennai, his current place of residence.
- If the police file a chargesheet, the trial court must not initiate proceedings against Kamra until the High Court rules on the quashing petition.
- The police’s notice was issued under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), which does not require arrest. The court recorded this intention of non-arrest in its order.
- Should new material arise, the police may approach the court for further directions.
Arguments presented by Kamra’s counsel
- Freedom of Speech under Article 19
Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, representing Kamra, firmly asserted that the content of Kamra’s comedy act falls squarely within the ambit of the right to free speech and expression protected under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. He maintained that the performance was satirical in nature, dealt with public political events, and did not fall within the permissible restrictions under Article 19(2).
As per LiveLaw, referring to several judgments of the Supreme Court, including Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat, Seervai argued that censorious actions against artists amount to chilling effects and suppress free speech through fear of prosecution. He emphasised that this case was emblematic of the State’s misuse of legal processes, allegedly at the behest of a political party, to intimidate a comedian and send a broader message to dissenting artists.
- Misuse of police machinery and procedural flaws
Seervai questioned the haste with which the FIR was filed. He pointed out that the complainant, Shiv Sena MLA Murji Patel, reportedly viewed the clip at 9:30 pm on March 23, filed a complaint at 10:45 pm, and an FIR was registered by 11:52 pm on the same night. Summons were issued the following day. As per Bar and Bench, Seervai contended that the FIR process was mechanically executed without due application of mind.
Additionally, he argued that Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which relates to defamation, was incorrectly invoked since the person allegedly defamed—Eknath Shinde—had not filed the complaint himself.
- Lack of grounds for Section 353 (1) (b) BNS
The charge under Section 353(1)(b) BNS, which concerns attempts to create fear or alarm leading to offences against the State or public tranquillity, was also challenged. Seervai maintained that Kamra’s act was a factual and satirical account of political developments in Maharashtra, notably the 2022 split in the Shiv Sena and the subsequent change in government. He argued that satire should not be judged at face value and must be assessed from the standpoint of a rational, strong-minded observer.
- Death threats and intimidation
Highlighting the threats Kamra has received from political workers, Seervai accused the police of harassment by insisting on Kamra’s physical presence despite his willingness to cooperate via video conferencing. He described the police’s approach as a “witch hunt”, citing that audience members and the show’s production team were called for questioning over 60 times.
State Government’s submissions
- Distinction between humour and malicious targeting
The State’s counsel contended that Kamra’s remarks were not protected by Article 19(1)(a) because they constituted a cognisable offence. According to the State, the content of Kamra’s act crossed the line from satirical critique to “malicious targeting” of an individual. The counsel argued that public figures also possess a right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that Kamra’s performance lowered Deputy CM Shinde’s dignity by targeting his appearance and political conduct.
The State rejected the comparison to politicians using similar language, stating that the absence of prior prosecution did not bar lawful action in Kamra’s case.
- Section 353(2) and political community
The State also argued that Kamra’s clip promoted public mischief under Section 353(2) BNS. The counsel alleged that it contained false information and fostered ill-will. Notably, the State interpreted “community” to include political parties with large followings and common ideology, implying that Kamra’s remarks could foment hostility between political groups.
- On threats and police conduct
While the State claimed responsibility for Kamra’s safety, it pointed out that Kamra had not filed any formal complaint about the threats. The High Court, however, acknowledged Kamra’s communications indicating fear for his safety and asked the police if his statement could be recorded in Chennai with the assistance of the local police.
When the State argued for liberty to arrest in future if new material emerged, the court responded that the notice under Section 35(3) BNSS already recorded the police’s current intent not to arrest and that the State could not now deny this position.
Background of the case
Kunal Kamra, who is currently residing in Tamil Nadu, had previously secured interim anticipatory bail from the Madras High Court, extended until April 17. The case stems from a Zero FIR initially filed under Sections 353 (1) (b), 353(2), and 356 (2) of the BNS at the behest of Shiv Sena MLA Murji Patel, who claimed that Kamra’s reference to a “traitor” was directed at Eknath Shinde. Although Shinde’s name was not explicitly mentioned in the performance, the MLA alleged that the remarks were clearly intended against him in the context of the Shiv Sena split.
The show, titled Naya Bharat, reportedly covered a range of political and social issues, including commentary on political opportunism, the power of India’s billionaire class, and gender inequality. Following the controversy, Shiv Sena workers vandalised Mumbai’s Habitat Studio, where Kamra had performed. Twelve individuals were arrested in connection with the violence and later released on bail. Kamra maintains that he has been facing death threats ever since.
Kamra subsequently received multiple threats and moved the Madras High Court—since he currently resides in Tamil Nadu—seeking interim anticipatory bail. On April 7, 2025, the Madras High Court extended his interim protection from arrest until April 17. Thereafter, Kamra approached the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of the FIR.
Related:
“It’s not Aurangzeb’s grave, but a plot to uproot Shivaji Maharaj’s valour!”