Mumbai: The Bombay high court has granted comedian Kunal Kamra interim protection from arrest until it delivers its decision on his petition seeking the quashing of a first information report registered against him over a comedy show in which he alluded to Maharashtra deputy chief minister Eknath Shinde.

This protection comes as succour for Kamra as the interim relief previously granted to him by the Madras high court was only valid until April 17, today.

A division bench comprising Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice Shriram Modak, after hearing arguments from both sides, reserved the matter for orders. The bench noted, according to Bar and Bench, the public prosecutor’s agreement that the summons issued to Kamra were under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which applies when the arrest of the person is not required. In light of this, the court directed that Kamra should not be arrested pending its final order. 

The FIR was filed in March following a stand-up show in Mumbai where Kamra referenced Shinde’s split from the Shiv Sena in 2022. The case was registered under Sections 353(1)(b), 353(2) (relating to public mischief) and 356(2) (defamation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) based on a complaint by Shiv Sena MLA Muraji Patel.

Shiv Sena (Shinde) workers ransacked and vandalised the venue in Mumbai and gave open threats to Kamra. Shinde himself also claimed that this violence was in “retaliation.”

Appearing for Kamra, Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai argued that the comedian’s satirical comments fall under the protection of freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution and do not constitute any cognisable offence. He contended that the FIR was an attempt to misuse the legal machinery to stifle artistic expression and create a chilling effect.

Seervai also highlighted alleged procedural lapses, including the haste in registering the FIR, the lack of a preliminary inquiry potentially required under Section 173(3) BNSS, and the fact that the defamation complaint was not filed by the allegedly aggrieved party, Shinde. He further pointed to the police insisting on Kamra’s physical presence in Mumbai despite documented death threats against him.

The state counsel countered that Kamra’s act constituted “malicious targeting” rather than humorous criticism, intended to lower Shinde’s dignity in society, thus potentially violating Article 21 rights.