Mumbai Police had registered seven FIRs after Kunal Kamra made an offensive joke about Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde during a stand-up comedy show. On this, Kunal Kamra filed a petition in the Bombay High Court on Saturday, April 5, seeking quashing of the FIR. Despite being summoned for the third time on April 2, Kunal Kamra did not appear before the Mumbai Police in this case.Shiv Sena MLA Murji Patel had filed a complaint in this regard. Kamra was seen performing a stand-up comedy show at the Habitat Studio in the Unicontinental Hotel in Khar Patel had complained that Deputy Chief Minister Shinde was defamed by making derogatory statements about him. Subsequently, on March 24, a case was registered against Kunal Kamra at the MIDC police station for offences punishable under sections 353 (1) B and 353 (2) (publicly offensive statements) and 356 (2) (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Later, the MIDC police transferred the Zero FIR to the Khar police.Shiv Sena MLA Murji Patel said that Kamra has created hatred between the two political parties by tarnishing the feelings of his party and his rival political parties towards each other.In this petition, Kunal Kamra has claimed that this action violates his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 (1) (c) (right to carry on any profession and occupation) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.Last month, the Madras High Court granted Kamra interim anticipatory bail till April 7 in connection with an FIR filed against him in Mumbai for his alleged remarks against Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde.Kunal Kamra, a permanent resident of North Tamil Nadu district, has approached the Madras High Court in this matter. While presenting his case in the Madras High Court, he clarified that the complaint filed against him is politically motivated. He is in danger of immediate arrest and physical harm in Maharashtra. The police have been requested to record his statement through video conferencing. The petition states that the police refused to allow Kamra to appear for questioning through video conferencing despite a real threat to his life. The petition also states that the police’s demand for Kunal Kamra’s physical presence in these circumstances is unreasonable. There was also a demand to suspend the investigation and not take any coercive action against Kamra.Public figures are subject to public gaze including in respect of their private life at times. In Law the position of public figures is different and in case of violation of right of their privacy the remedy is action for damages. The justification or claim of truth is an absolute defence and there is no right of privacy available to an individual in such a case. If a person is a leader of a political party in the State then everything which happened within or outside of her household was of interest to public and thus there is a right to comment and write about the same. Insofar as public figures and politicians are concerned their lives are day-in-and-day-out brought under microscope and commented upon. There cannot be segregation of private life of such public figures from their public life, as both are intertwined. It is, therefore, contended that by the very nature of being a public figure such person’s life is entitled to be scrutinized, whether in respect of their public function or their private life.The Court can at best direct not to repeat the incident, but a blanket injunction restraining the person to speak anything in future is counter to the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.Our Constitution is not absolute with respect to the freedom of speech and expression. This right is subject to reasonable restrictions on grounds set out in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Reasonable limitation can be put in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the secrecy of the State, friendly relationship with foreign state, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement of an offence.It was of the highest public importance that a governmental body should be open to uninhibited public criticism, and a right to sue for defamation would place an undesirable fetter on freedom of speech.”
By Dr. Anupriya Gaikwad
For True to Life News Media Pvt. Ltd.