PIL urges HC to lay down guidelines for protecting artists, public speakers like Kunal Kamra

MUMBAI: A second-year law student has filed a public interest litigation (PIL) before the Bombay High Court, urging it to establish guidelines to prevent arbitrary First Information Reports (FIRs) against artists and public speakers engaged in satire and political criticism.

The PIL comes in the wake of an FIR registered against stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra and seeks a declaration that his speech was protected under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.

The controversy revolves around Kamra’s satirical song, which was a modified version of a Hindi track from the 1997 film Dil Toh Pagal Hai. The song, which critiqued the 2022 rebellion led by Eknath Shinde against Uddhav Thackeray and his eventual ascension to the Chief Minister’s post with the BJP’s backing, sparked strong reactions. Following its release, Shiv Sena (Shinde faction) workers vandalised Habitat studio in Khar, prompting the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to initiate demolition of parts of the premises.

The petitioner contends that Kamra’s speech falls within the ambit of satire and political criticism, both of which are protected under constitutional free speech. The plea highlights the fundamental role of political humour and satire in a democracy and argues that restrictions on such expressions amount to suppression of free speech.

The PIL seeks guidelines to prevent arbitrary FIRs against artists and public speakers unless their speech incites violence, protection for individuals who liked, shared, or tweeted Kamra’s video, as authorities have indicated possible action against such content, scrutiny of the legality and constitutional validity of the actions taken by the Shiv Sena (Shinde faction) workers and local authorities following the video’s broadcast.

The petition raises several legal questions, including, whether Kamra’s speech qualifies as satire and is protected under Article 19(1)(a) or if it constitutes an offence under Section 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Whether criminal law can be invoked against political satire, and if doing so amounts to suppression of dissent. Whether the selective demolition of Kamra’s performance venue, while other unauthorised structures remained untouched, constitutes an abuse of power violating Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution. Whether the lack of action against BJP MLA Nitesh Rane and right-wing leader Sambhaji Bhide for alleged hate speeches, while targeting Kamra, reflects selective prosecution and misuse of power.

The PIL highlights the growing concerns over the use of criminal laws to stifle dissent and criticises the alleged misuse of state machinery to target political satirists. The petitioners argue that a legal framework is necessary to distinguish between lawful political criticism and speech that genuinely incites violence, thereby ensuring that democratic freedoms remain intact.

BOX:

What the PIL seeks:

Guidelines to prevent arbitrary FIRs against artists and public speakers unless their speech incites violence.

Protection for individuals who liked, shared, or tweeted Kamra’s video, as authorities have indicated possible action against such content.

Scrutiny of the legality and constitutional validity of the actions taken by the Shiv Sena (Shinde faction) workers and local authorities following the video’s broadcast.