High-Stakes Hearing: Comedian Kunal Kamra's Legal Battle Over Alleged Defamation

The Bombay High Court is set to hear Kunal Kamra's plea to quash an FIR by Mumbai Police that alleges defamation. Kamra challenges the FIR on constitutional grounds, citing freedom of expression. The case involves political tensions and financial probe threats, sparked by Kamra's show, 'Naya Bharat'.

The Bombay High Court will hear stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra's plea to dismiss an FIR lodged by Mumbai Police, accusing him of defamation. This decision comes after Kamra appealed for an urgent hearing, which is set for tomorrow, highlighting concerns over freedom of expression and constitutional rights.

Filed on April 5, Kamra's petition argues that the FIR breaches his fundamental rights, specifically Articles 19 and 21, which ensure freedom of expression and the right to life. The case is to be reviewed by a division bench of Justice SV Kotwal and Justice SM Modak.

The FIR follows Kamra's satirical show 'Naya Bharat', which ignited political backlash, particularly due to comments about Maharashtra's Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde. Kamra's legal team maintains that his satirical content falls under protected speech, thus should not be criminalized.

Adding fuel to the fire, Yuva Sena's General Secretary Rahool Kanal publicly appealed for Kamra's cooperation in the investigation, emphasizing that bail is a fundamental right. Kanal further urged BookMyShow to halt ticket sales for Kamra's shows, citing potential public unrest risks.

The comedian's legal challenges deepen as the Economic Offences Wing of Mumbai Police launches a probe into financial allegations linked to Kamra's performances, following a complaint from a Shiv Sena functionary. Three FIRs have been filed against Kamra, accusing him of defamation against public figures.

Accusations include labeling Deputy Chief Minister Shinde as a 'traitor'. Previously, the Madras High Court granted Kamra interim anticipatory bail until April 7, citing potential threats over his comments. The unfolding legal battle highlights the tension between artistic expression and the political sensitivities it may provoke.

(With inputs from agencies.)