Anything under garb of free speech? Karnataka HC pulls up Zee over depiction of Hindu Gods in comedy show

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday expressed strong displeasure over the manner in which Hindu deities were portrayed on an episode of Comedy Khiladigalu, a Kannada comedy show broadcast by Zee [Zee Enterprises and anr v. State of Karnataka and anr].

Justice M Nagaprasanna said that while comic expressions are permitted, they cannot come at the cost of others.

Representing the showrunners, Senior Advocate Sandesh Chouta had submitted today that the episode in question focused on fictional villagers who were rehearsing a play about a scene from the Mahabharata.

"So under the garb of free speech, you can do anything you want? Then?" Justice Nagaprasanna asked.

He went on to comment,

"You don’t deserve any indulgence, such people do not deserve any indulgence who display Gods, mythological figures as useless. Why should I show indulgence? Why should such people be spared? Did you see the complaint? What you have depicted Lord Krishna as? Can you read the complaint. Is it readable? What have you depicted Droupadi as? Is it readable? In the name of comedy, anything is happening in this country? 'Free speech.' Is this the way? This is unreadable. So we should show indulgence?"

However, the Court eventually granted Zee interim relief and directed the State authorities not to arrest its representatives on the condition that they cooperate with the investigation.

"Petitioners shall participate in the investigation, as the matter is still at the stage of crime. The prosecution, under the garb of investigation, shall not take any coercive steps against these petitioners till next date," the Court's order said.

Senior Advocate Chouta today told the Court that episode did not feature a direct portrayal of Hindu deities, but was a skit about the rehearsal of a play sought to be put up by some villagers.

"These characters are rehearsing for a play. That is shown in the comedy series. And this comedy series has been going on for five seasons. Please see how this is done. It is not meant to hurt the religious sentiments," Chouta said.

"What else it is?" Justice Nagaprasanna retorted.

Chouta went on to argue that there were procedural lapses in how the case was handled by the police. The complaint about the episode was initially filed in Hubli, which was then transferred to Bengaluru.

In complaints of this nature, there has to be a preliminary inquiry but that was not done in this case, Chouta maintained.

This led Justice Nagaprasanna to lament,

"All cases are closed because of procedure not being followed by the prosecution. Every case, you (State) leave a loophole. Whether it is deliberate or not, who knows."

Chouta went to re-assert that the episode focused on people rehearsing a play about Hindu deities, and not the deities themselves.

"This whole thing was a rehearsal for a play, which is shown in a comical sense," he said.

He also sought to rely on the Supreme Court's ruling in the Imran Pratapgarhi case to maintain that procedural safeguards have to be followed before registering a case for the alleged offence of promoting enmity between religious groups was not followed.

The Court, however, continued to express reservations about whether the show makers can claim any relief.

"Because we (courts) are being more liberal, these things are happening. If we become stringent (things will be different)" he added.

"Probably, the comedy was extended too much. That’s all that happened," Chouta began to submit.

"Participate in the investigation," the judge eventually suggested, adding that if procedural steps have been flouted, the accused show maker can always seek bail.

Chouta then expressed concerns about the larger implications at play if a comedy show could result in the registration of a criminal case.

"Don’t paint everything with the same brush… everything is going to be like this so be it? Comedy, yes, but not at the cost of somebody else," the judge replied.

Chouta continued to maintain that the episode merely featured the rehearsal of a play by some villagers.

"Then why circulate the rehearsal?" the Court asked.

"Acting out of rehearsal was the comedy part of it. It is not to demean any person. The three characters are commenting on each other, not as if it is the mythological figures (doing these things). That is not the intention at all," Chouta replied.

The Court eventually ordered that the show runners participate in the probe, while protecting them from arrest until the case is heard next.