MUMBAI, MAY 1, 2025 —
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) filed against stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, which alleged that the comedian’s digital content is derogatory, scandalous, and contemptuous of the Indian judiciary.
The PIL, filed by Kiran Samant, a sitting MLA from the Shiv Sena (Shinde faction), claimed Kamra misuses his digital platform to undermine public faith in constitutional institutions, particularly the judiciary, under the guise of satire and commercial gain.
The Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik held that the petitioner had not exhausted alternative remedies available under existing laws, particularly the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
“So far as the first relief claimed by the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has efficacious remedy provided to him under the 2009 Rules… The petitioner has not invoked this remedy and has approached the court seeking wide reliefs which cannot be granted,” the Court stated.
PETITIONER SOUGHT CENSORSHIP AND TAKEDOWN OF ONLINE CONTENT
The PIL sought multiple directions, including:
- Immediate removal of allegedly contemptuous content from digital platforms,
- Formation of a Social Media Vigilance and Censorship Committee,
- An affidavit from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) detailing steps taken under the IT Act, and
- A directive to Google LLC (YouTube’s parent company) to permanently suspend Kamra’s channel.
- However, the Court observed that matters related to policy-making and content regulation fall outside the judiciary’s domain.
“The petitioner himself is a lawmaker, and it is open for him to take appropriate action,” the Bench noted.
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST KAMRA: “MONETIZING CONTEMPT”
Samant’s petition alleged that Kamra’s content crosses the line from satire to contempt, characterizing his online remarks as part of a deliberate business strategy to provoke controversy and generate revenue.
He claimed this amounts to “commercial speech,” which he argued is not fully protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution due to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), particularly in relation to contempt of court and public order.
Among the examples cited was a 2020 social media post where Kamra allegedly made an obscene gesture toward the then Chief Justice of India — an act that was previously the subject of contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court.
The petitioner also referred to Kamra’s 2025 comedy special titled “Naya Bharat”, in which the comedian allegedly accused central agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and CBI of acting as tools of the ruling party. Samant argued such statements aim to “incite public distrust in institutions” under the pretext of comedy.
COURT’S FINAL DIRECTIONS
While declining to grant any substantive reliefs, the Bombay High Court allowed the petitioner to formally approach government authorities under the 2009 IT Blocking Rules.
“Needless to state that in case petitioner makes any such request, the same shall be supplied to him,” the Court clarified.
The plea for the creation of a censorship body was also rejected, with the Court emphasizing the separation of powers and the role of lawmakers in initiating policy-level changes.
REPRESENTATION
For the Petitioner (Kiran Samant): Advocate Bahraiz Irani, instructed by Shane Santos
For Kunal Kamra: Senior Advocate Darius Khambata
KEY TAKEAWAYS
The Bombay High Court rejected a PIL against comedian Kunal Kamra, stating the petitioner must first use remedies under the IT Blocking Rules, 2009.
The Court refused to intervene in policy matters like censorship committees or platform-level takedowns.
The ruling highlights judicial restraint in regulating digital speech and satire, reinforcing the role of statutory frameworks and executive action in such cases.
