Kunal Kamra's lawyer told the Bombay High Court that even after 75 years of independence, such police actions are still happening.

Kunal Kamra's Lawyer Slams Police Action in Bombay High Court: “Even After 75 Years of Independence…”

Mumbai — In a dramatic hearing before the Bombay High Court, stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra’s legal team voiced strong criticism of the Maharashtra Police, questioning the very state of democracy and freedom of expression in the country. Representing Kamra, his lawyer told the court, “Even after 75 years of independence, we are seeing actions that resemble colonial-era repression.”

The comment came in the context of a legal battle concerning police action against Kamra, who is facing charges related to a recent public protest in Mumbai. Kamra had participated in a peaceful demonstration against alleged censorship and attacks on freedom of speech. According to the police, the protest violated public order regulations, but Kamra’s lawyer called the move “a targeted crackdown on dissent.”

Background: The Protest and Police Response

The controversy began in late March 2025, when Kamra joined a sit-in protest organized by artists, students, and civil society members at Azad Maidan in Mumbai. The protest was in response to a string of events involving what critics describe as rising censorship and the silencing of voices critical of the government, including comedians, journalists, and academics.

The demonstration was peaceful and reportedly had fewer than 100 participants. Protesters held placards, sang songs, and read aloud from the Constitution. According to eyewitnesses, there were no signs of violence, no hate speech, and no disruption of public life.

However, within a few hours, police officers arrived at the scene, ordered the crowd to disperse, and detained several individuals, including Kamra. Although he was later released, the police filed an FIR (First Information Report) against him under sections related to unlawful assembly, disobedience to public servant orders, and public nuisance.

The Legal Challenge in the Bombay High Court

Challenging the FIR, Kamra filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, arguing that the charges were baseless and violated his constitutional rights to free speech and peaceful assembly.

During the hearing, Kamra’s lawyer, senior advocate Vrinda Grover, made a passionate appeal before the division bench comprising Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain. “This is not merely about one comedian. It’s about the right of every citizen to voice their opinion peacefully,” Grover said.

She went on to state, “Even after 75 years of independence, it is deeply troubling that peaceful protest is being criminalized. Are we living in a democracy or a police state?”

Freedom of Expression in Focus

Kamra, who has long been known for his sharp political humor and criticism of government policies, has often found himself at odds with authorities. This time, however, the issue has sparked a larger debate about freedom of expression in India.

“Peaceful protest is the essence of a democratic society,” Grover told the court. “If we label every expression of disagreement as a threat to public order, we are dismantling the very fabric of our democracy.”

She cited previous judgments from the Supreme Court, including the landmark Shaheen Bagh verdict and the Anuradha Bhasin ruling, which reinforced the right to protest and the right to dissent as fundamental constitutional protections.

The State’s Argument

Representing the state of Maharashtra, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh defended the police action. He argued that while the right to protest is protected, it must be balanced with the responsibility to maintain law and order.

“This is not about suppressing speech,” Singh told the court. “This is about ensuring that public spaces are not disrupted and that there is no violation of safety protocols. The police acted within their rights under the law.”

He added that the protest had not been granted prior permission and therefore violated regulations governing public gatherings in sensitive areas like Azad Maidan.

However, Kamra’s lawyer countered this claim, stating that no such permission is required for a peaceful, small-scale assembly that does not pose any threat or inconvenience.

Public Reaction and Support

The incident has triggered a wave of public reactions across the country. Prominent voices from the comedy circuit, human rights organizations, legal communities, and political opposition leaders have condemned the police action.

Fellow comedian Zakir Khan posted on X (formerly Twitter), “A peaceful protest is not a crime. Silencing comedians won’t silence the truth.”

Noted lawyer and activist Indira Jaising also weighed in, saying, “This is a pattern — criminalizing speech, detaining dissenters, and misusing laws to intimidate. The judiciary must act to protect our freedoms.”

On the other hand, some social media users defended the police, arguing that public protests need regulation and that figures like Kamra often provoke public sentiment under the guise of comedy.

Kamra’s Statement

Speaking to the media after the court hearing, Kamra remained unapologetic and composed. “I’m just a comedian with a mic. If that’s a threat to power, maybe the power is too fragile,” he said.

He clarified that his presence at the protest was not intended to incite anyone but to stand in solidarity with fellow citizens concerned about shrinking space for dialogue and artistic freedom.

“My jokes are not more dangerous than policies that silence people,” he added.

The Bigger Picture: Free Speech in India

The case has once again brought attention to the ongoing tension between authority and free speech in India. Over the past few years, several comedians, including Munawar Faruqui and Agrima Joshua, have faced police action, FIRs, or cancellations of shows due to their satirical content.

Experts say this pattern reflects a deeper conflict over how freedom of speech is interpreted and enforced in a changing political climate.

“There’s a difference between hate speech and critical speech,” said Professor Sandeep Shah of Mumbai University’s Law Department. “Unfortunately, the line is often blurred by those in power. Today, comedians are being targeted. Tomorrow, it could be students, teachers, or ordinary citizens.”

What the Constitution Says

India’s Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), but it is subject to “reasonable restrictions” in the interests of public order, morality, and security. These restrictions, however, must be narrowly interpreted and cannot be used to curtail peaceful expression or protest.

In recent years, courts have reaffirmed these protections. The Supreme Court, in multiple judgments, has emphasized that citizens have the right to criticize the government and that dissent is the “safety valve” of democracy.

“The state must show extraordinary justification to restrict peaceful speech,” said retired Justice Madan Lokur. “Otherwise, we risk normalizing authoritarianism.”

What’s Next?

The Bombay High Court has reserved its judgment on Kamra’s petition and has asked the state to submit detailed records of the police action, including the grounds on which the FIR was registered. A decision is expected within the next two weeks.

Legal observers believe this case could set an important precedent on the rights of individuals to protest peacefully, especially in the context of artistic expression and public discourse.

If the court quashes the FIR, it could reaffirm the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding civil liberties. If it upholds the police action, it may embolden further crackdowns on dissent under similar legal justifications.

Conclusion

The case of Kunal Kamra versus the Maharashtra Police is more than just a legal dispute — it is a reflection of the growing tension between the citizen’s right to speak and the state’s tendency to silence. As India reflects on 75+ years of independence, the question raised by Kamra’s lawyer remains more relevant than ever: What kind of democracy are we building, if peaceful voices must face criminal charges?

The Bombay High Court’s verdict will be closely watched not just by the legal community, but by every Indian who values the right to speak, to question, and to protest.