Kamra’s joke during his stand-up performance “Naya Bharat,” in which he allegedly dubbed Maharashtra’s Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde a “gaddar” (traitor), was the basis for the complaint.
The remark was interpreted as a reference to Shinde’s switch to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) from the Shiv Sena, which was led by Uddhav Thackeray.
How the court wants to question
Kamra While hearing a plea by Kamra seeking the quashing of the FIR, Justices Sarang Kotwal and SM Modak clarified that while the investigation can continue, any questioning of Kamra has to be conducted in Chennai, where he currently resides.
The court also said if a chargesheet is filed by Mumbai police during the ongoing proceedings before the high court, the trial court shall not proceed against him.
Arguments in court Kamra’s legal team challenges FIR filing
Kamra’s counsel, Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, argued the FIR was lodged in haste and arbitrarily without a proper preliminary inquiry.
He said it was “perverse” and showed “non-application of mind” that it was registered within just over an hour of police receiving the information. Seervai also challenged criminal defamation via an FIR, saying it was a non-cognizable offense and should be filed via private complaint.
Argument for speech rights Kamra’s performance defended as satire
Seervai emphasized that Kamra’s act fell under his constitutional right to free speech because it was satire. “It may not appeal to you. You will receive criticism. According to one opinion, politicians ought to have thick skin. He stated, “It cannot be used to suppress freedom of speech.” Seervai also revealed that since the controversy erupted, Kamra has received hundreds of death threats, including threats of physical violence and posters calling for his execution.
State’s stance
Public prosecutor defends FIR against Kamra
For the state, the FIR and the applicable sections were defended by Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar. He claimed that Kamra’s remarks were a concerted attack on a public figure rather than political satire. Venegaonkar also argued that preliminary verification was done before filing the FIR and apprised the court that Kamra’s video had sparked public unrest, including vandalization of the studio where his performance happened.