Kunal Kamra Case: Supreme Court Strong statement on freedom of Speech

Kunal Kamra Case: A bench consisting of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan ruled that no offense was proven. Criticizing the Gujarat Police’s excessive enthusiasm in launching an investigation against Congress Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi for posting a poem on Instagram with the caption, “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno.”

The Supreme Court dismissed the FIR against Pratapgarhi today, saying that “courts must be at the forefront to protect freedom of speech and expression.” The top court said that the restrictions on speech must be “reasonable, not fanciful,” and that Article 19(2) of the constitution cannot overshadow the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1).

Court Statement:

Following this, the court also said, “Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In a healthy democracy, differing views must be countered with counter-speech, not suppression. Literature, including poetry, drama, films, stand-up comedy, satire, and art, makes life more meaningful.”

The comments coincide with a major political controversy surrounding stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra’s remarks on Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde during his performance. Social media users shared clips from Mr. Kamra’s show, which resulted in the comic’s FIR being filed and the Mumbai Khar venue where he performed having its set vandalized.

FIR Details:

However, on January 3, an advocate’s clerk filed a formal complaint against Mr. Pratapgarhi at the Jamnagar police station, claiming that the poem in his Instagram post caused social turmoil and disrupted peace. The Gujarat High Court had already criticized Mr. Pratapgarhi for not acting responsibly as a lawmaker and declined to dismiss the FIR.

Mr. Pratapgarhi asserted that the poem was written by well-known poets Habib Jalib or Faiz Ahmed Faiz. He provided screenshots from ChatGPT, an AI tool, to back up his assertion. The prosecution countered that he needed to be more cautious on social media because he was a member of parliament.