New Delhi: Attorney General K. K. Venugopal has granted his consent to initiate contempt of court proceedings against stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra for his recent tweet targeting Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde.
This is the second time in about a fortnight that the attorney general has allowed for contempt proceedings against Kamra, after his series of tweets had criticised the Supreme Court following the bail secured by television anchor Arnab Goswami at the top court the first time.
In his recent tweet on November 18, Kamra posted a picture of his index and middle finger against an airplane window with the caption: “One of these 2 fingers is for CJI Arvind Bobde… ok let me not confuse you it’s the middle one.”
After this tweet went viral, an Allahabad high court advocate Anuj Singh wrote to attorney general Venugopal on Thursday requesting him to initiate contempt proceedings against the comic for posting “objectionable” tweet against the CJI.
Granting his consent to contempt proceedings, Venugopal said Kamra’s tweet was not only aimed at “deliberately” insulting CJI but also to undermine the faith litigants place in the apex court.
“The said tweet is grossly vulgar and obnoxious, and I have no doubt that it would tend to lower the authority of the Supreme Court of India…” Venugopal said in his November 20th letter responding to Anuj Singh.
Meanwhile, Meenakshi Lekhi-led parliamentary committee on personal data protection Bill pulled up Twitter India on Thursday asking why it did not remove Kamra’s “objectionable” tweets against Supreme Court and its judges. It sought a response from the social media giant within a week.
The first-time when Venugopal had allowed for contempt proceedings against him, Kamra said he does not intend to retract his tweets, which came in the wake of bail granted to Arnab Goswami by the top court. “No lawyers, No apology, No fine, No waste of space,” he had tweeted.
Reacting to Goswami’s bail, Kamra had said his tweets represented his view that the Supreme Court was “giving a partial decision in favour of a Prime Time Loudspeaker”. He had said that the Supreme Court maintained a silence on the matters of personal liberty in other cases, adding that such conduct cannot go uncriticised.