Continuing the discussion on the Kunal Kamra controversy, Anjali dives deep into the implications on free speech that this incident can have. In Part I, she discussed the fair dealing exception with respect to the controversy. Anjali Tripathi is a fourth-year law student at JGLS with an interest in IP rights, access to education, and the creative arts. Her previous post can be accessed here.
Clik here to view.
Fair Dealing or Foul Play? The Latest Kunal Kamra Controversy
By Anjali Tripathi
In Part I of this post, I attempted to examine how Indian copyright law (fair dealing, in this context) intersects with parody and political satire in the case of Kunal Kamra’s comedy special Naya Bharat. But copyright was seemingly only the first hurdle. As the controversy unfolded, a more troubling pattern emerged: the instrumental use of digital takedowns, police complaints, and even violent backlash to suppress dissent. Part II dives into the free speech implications of this case, exploring how copyright enforcement is increasingly being weaponised to silence criticism.
Suppression and Digital Censorship
There is a crucial balance to be maintained between protecting intellectual property and safeguarding freedom of expression as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. Kamra’s case asks a more important question about whether aggressive copyright enforcement can be allowed to chill political satire and debate. This would be detrimental to the very democratic threads of Indian society as dissent and questioning is what leads to critical change.
Clik here to view.
While Article 19 does have exceptions in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, among others, they frequently do not qualify the inconsistent and politically charged cases they are employed in. This has led to pertinent cases like Shreya Singhal v Union of India (Supreme Court 2015), where S. 66A of the IT Act was struck down as it criminalised offensive messages online, which led to a suppression of legitimate speech. The Court had held that speech can only be limited when it poses a clear and imminent threat which Kamra’s case arguably does not. Another case to consider is the S. Rangaraja v P. Jagjivan Ram (Supreme Court 1989) case, where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that speech cannot be curtailed unless it is dangerous to public interest. In my opinion, regardless of political leanings, having open discussions and opinions about the ruling parties is always beneficial to a state. Further, the Imran Pratapgarhi (Supreme Court 2025) case reinforces that these restrictions should not be arbitrary, and courts should be at the forefront of protecting freedom of speech and expression.
Looking at it from a content creator’s perspective, practical aspects like restrictions on “Super Thanks” donations upon facing copyright strikes can have very real impacts on the life of the creator, especially if they are in the middle of expensive legal proceedings. Multiple parties which may now be holding an opposing view have had singers arrested for criticism of policies during protests or for ‘inflammatory’ remarks against chief ministers, or supported free journalism on the one hand while allowing political satire and dissent to be clamped down upon (see here).
Up-and-coming digital platforms have only further complicated the landscape of free speech. Selective enforcement and weaponisation of laws are rampant. While reasonable restrictions on free speech are necessary, their application needs to be non-partisan and fair. At the end of the day, a robust democracy thrives on the free and unfettered exchange of ideas, even when uncomfortable or critical of those in power.
Final Thoughts, The Joke’s on Us
Kunal Kamra’s parody should not be looked at as just one comedian poking fun at a politician in power to gain viewers. More than just the comedy scene in India being at risk – this is about whether the law is properly equipped to prevent its own mis-use by those with power. With more and more comedians becoming ‘storytellers’ and most only cautiously speaking up online, it is not just one less form of entertainment; it is suppression of the voice of the public. While the comedians will survive, the legal loopholes are being used as shields by politicians. And let’s be honest, when the stakes are this high, the jokes practically write themselves. Claims about him receiving terror funding make this all the more absurd and scary. Kamra’s case is just the latest, more popular one in a long tradition of powerful figures using the law to swat away critics.
From my understanding of fair dealing in India, Kamra has a strong claim. If not, his warning to creators (see here) would come true, and that scares me more than the empty threats Kamra seems to be receiving. But, it’s true that Indian copyright law doesn’t explicitly recognise parody as an exception, which means every time a comedian dares to make it easier to digest the realities of our political situation, they risk being dragged to court. This case serves as a good opportunity for courts to create a legally sound precedent that prevents such misuse of the law.
The result of this case would be significant regardless of which way this goes. Maybe legal disclaimers before not just movies, but comedy shows would be helpful. Or, worse, sticking to the safest possible material (Knock knock! Who’s there? Not another lawsuit, hopefully). As I speak to people about this case, it’s disheartening to see them view it from just a political lens coloured by their own ideologies. I believe it is more than just Kamra; it’s about whether India wants to portray itself as a country where political humour is allowed to thrive, and criticism is welcome or if it wants to become a shadow of who she was imagined to be by the drafters of the Constitution where even audience members of a show like Kamra’s are served notice.