Kunal Kamra is no stranger to testing the promise of free speech in India. He has been banned by Indigo Airlines, received a notice from the National Child Rights Commission, had contempt proceedings initiated against him by the Supreme Court of India, in addition to well over a decade of trolling he has received online. With some success, he has also challenged the Union government’s IT Rules, which attempted to give them considerable monopoly over fact-checking on the internet.
This time around, Kamra’s latest stand-up comedy special ‘Naya Bharat’ released on YouTube, has placed him in the centre of yet another free speech storm. Quite apart from the criminal prosecutions initiated against Kamra for the alleged offences of ‘public mischief’ and criminal defamation, T-Series has launched a copyright strike on YouTube on the tenuous basis that a few of Kamra’s parody songs in the show violate T-Series’ copyright on some of the underlying musical works.
Constitutional protections are for everyone
Towards the end of his show, Kamra poignantly holds up a copy of the Constitution of India, confident that “this is what allows [him] to do what [he] do[es], and [with]in the framework of this book, you can do anything”. This, again, is not inaccurate, even if recent events have not made it feel like so. Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed under Article 19(2), guarantees the freedom of speech of expression.
The week of the release of Kamra’s show also saw the Supreme Court underscoring that free speech, including unpopular speech, is integral to a healthy democracy. In Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025), the Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Abhay S. Oka, observed that:
“literature including… stand-up comedy, satire and art, make the lives of human beings more meaningful.”. The Court went on to hold that “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.
Worth noting, however, is that the Constitution and the fundamental rights contained within them predominantly protect an individual from the actions of the state, not from other private individuals. While state repression of dissenting voices has become commonplace in Naya Bharat, a new dimension of suppressing dissent is the use of copyright law by sympathising private actors.
Also read: Backstory | Kunal Kamra’s Statement ‘I Consent to Comedy’ Emerges Directly From Article 19(1)(a)
Copyright law and fundamental rights
Reportedly, T-Series has issued a copyright strike in respect of some musical works adapted and parodied in Kamra’s show, which copyright strike has resulted in YouTube preventing Kamra from monetising his show. Note, however, that advertisements continue to interrupt the video several times, only that Kamra will not receive a share of the advertising revenue from the publication of his show.
The exact details are unclear, but it appears that among the medley of songs adapted by Kamra towards the end of his show, T-Series has identified one (or more) of the musical works and/or sound recordings to which they own the copyright, and has then issued to YouTube a copyright notice claiming infringement of its works.
Indian copyright law is not as well developed on the issue of parody and satire, and certainly not as protective of citizens’ fundamental rights, as in other jurisdictions. For example, copyright law in the US explicitly protects ‘parody’ as a form of ‘fair use’ that would preclude copyright action, and this protection has repeatedly been affirmed by judgments of the US Supreme Court.
Indian law, on the other hand, does not have a specific protection for ‘parody’ under its ‘fair dealing’ provision found in Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. However, Section 52 does contain a provision that protects fair dealing with any work, including a musical work or a sound record, if it is done for the purpose of “criticism or review of that work or any other work” and “the reporting of current events and current affairs”, both of which could be invoked to cover the parodies of songs that Kamra has made.
Also read: Kunal Kamra Has Done Nothing Wrong. It is His Detractors Who Need to Apologise.
Courts have recognised that the protections under Section 52 stem from the fundamental right to speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and therefore, the fair dealing exception commends itself to a liberal and speech-protecting interpretation.
To be eligible for the fair dealing exception in terms of Section 52, any adaption or parody will have to mainly satisfy the following tests: (a) that the adaption transforms the nature of the underlying work; (b) and the adaptation does not have an adverse effect on the potential market for the underlying work. In addition, courts also look at the amount of the work used and the nature of the underlying work. Fair dealing therefore is a question of fact, degree and the overall impression that the adaption makes.
Transformative nature of parodies
Kamra’s parodies indisputably transform the nature of the underlying work(s). In Kamra’s case, while the tune of the song(s) is similar enough to the original musical composition, the lyrics and their import are so starkly different from the original, that it could be argued that Kamra’s parody songs transform the underlying work substantially.
Also, Kamra’s brief parodies only reference a small portion of the underlying work and are not longer than a couple of minutes, and are insufficient to qualify as infringing T-Series’ copyright.
Separate markets
Pertinently, Kamra’s parodies will have no impact on the market for T-Series’ original score, much less an adverse impact. Kamra’s parodies and T-Series’s scores operate in completely separate markets.
No confusion of any sort is caused as to which is the original and which is the adaptation. Kamra’s parodies may in fact increase the recall value of the original score(s) and increase their potential reach.
Courts and satire in trademark law
While the limits of parody under copyright law have not so far been tested in Indian courts, there is some case law on the relationship between parody and trademarks.
In 2010 in Tata Sons v. Greenpeace International, the Delhi high court had said, in relation to trademark law:
“Parody is inherently paradoxical. Good parody is both original and parasitic, simultaneously creative and derivative. The relationship between the trademark and the parody is that if the parody does not take enough from the original trademark, the audience will not be able to recognise the trademark and therefore not be able to understand the humour. Conversely, if the parody takes too much it could be considered infringing, based upon the fact that there is too much theft and too little originality, regardless of how funny the parody is.”
Not long ago, the Delhi high court, in an order (again unrelated to copyright law), seemed to truly understand the nuances of satire. In Ashutosh Dubey v. Netflix (2020), the court held:
“One of the satirical techniques to criticise a particular subject or character is to exaggerate it beyond normal bounds so that it becomes ridiculous and its faults can be seen. Satire is a work of art. It is a literary work that ridicules its subject through the use of techniques like as exaggeration. It is a witty, ironic and often exaggerated portrayal of a subject. … Stand-up comedians perform that very purpose. In their portrayal they use satire and exaggerate the ills to an extent that it becomes a ridicule. In the humorous portrayal of the ills of the society the stand-up comedians use satire.”
Curiously, the same Delhi high court last year issued an interim injunction preventing parodists on YouTube from continuing to parody trademarks of “India TV” and “Aap ki Adalat”, a popular show by Rajat Sharma. What changed between 2020 and 2024 is anyone’s guess.
Different strokes for different folks
Other than Kamra, YouTube parodists (Offical Peeing Human, for instance), online media portals (such as Newslaundry), and the Indian National Congress, have faced a barrage of copyright notices and strikes from prominent Indian news channels, as well as copyright owners of musical scores. The common thread between them is non-conformity with the line sought to be advanced by the ruling political party and its allies.
On the other hand, here is a YouTube video parodying Arvind Kejriwal, using one of the very songs that Kamra parodies in his stand-up special. This was originally aired by Aaj Tak, and no known copyright-related consequence has befallen them.
T-Series itself has a long and documented history of playing fast and loose with copyright law, particularly during its initial years. A tree would do well to remember its roots.
Selective use of a legal provision to shut down opposition and muffle speech has a word: weaponisation. The law was not meant to be a weapon, that is not the ethos of our Constitution. The law was meant to be a shield, to protect ordinary citizens from the excesses of the state and other private actors, and it is incumbent upon the law to protect even unpopular citizens.
Tanmay Singh and Shreya Munoth are Delhi-based lawyers.
