What Bombay High Court said on PIL by Shiv Sena MLA against Kunal Kamra

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition that alleged misuse of digital platforms by public personalities like stand-up comic Kunal Kamra to circulate content that is scandalous, derogatory and contemptuous towards the Indian judiciary..The petitioner Kiran Samant, a sitting MLA of the Shiv Sena (Shinde faction), claimed that such content, though often defended as satire or free speech, in fact undermines constitutional institutions and erodes public faith in the justice system for commercial gain.The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik. In its ruling, the Bench noted that the petitioner had not exhausted existing remedies available under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. “So far as the first relief claimed by the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has efficacious remedy provided to him under the 2009 Rules… The petitioner has not invoked this remedy and has approached the court seeking wide reliefs which cannot be granted,” the Court stated.Hence, it disposed of the plea while granting Samant the liberty to approach government authorities..On the petitioner’s demand for the creation of a censorship body to monitor and remove offensive online content, the bench observed that such matters lie within the domain of policy-making and cannot be judicially enforced. “The petitioner himself is a lawmaker, and it is open for him to take appropriate action,” the Court said..In his petition, Samant described Kunal Kamra as a well-known public personality and businessman who uses his digital presence to promote content that disparages the judiciary and other constitutional bodies.The petitioner alleged that Kamra’s online and public remarks are not acts of individual dissent but part of a business strategy to provoke outrage and monetize controversy..According to Samant, Kamra's acts amount to a form of “commercial speech” that is not fully protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, as it infringes the reasonable restrictions laid out in Article 19(2), particularly with respect to contempt of court and public order.Among the examples cited in the petition was a 2020 social media post by Kamra, in which he allegedly made an obscene gesture directed at the then Chief Justice of India. .This post was previously the subject of contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court. The petitioner argued that this was not an isolated incident but part of a pattern where Kamra repeatedly undermined the dignity of the judiciary in his public appearances and digital content..Further, Samant also cited a comedy special released in March 2025 titled “Naya Bharat,” in which Kamra allegedly accused agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate and the CBI of functioning as tools of the ruling party. According to the petitioner, such content does not merely express criticism but aims to incite distrust in public institutions for the purpose of garnering online traffic and advertising revenue..Samant’s plea sought several directions from the court including removal of offending content from digital platforms, the formation of a Social Media Vigilance and Censorship Committee, and a detailed affidavit from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology outlining steps taken under the IT Act and Rules to regulate online speech. He also specifically sought a directive to YouTube's parent company, Google LLC, to permanently suspend Kamra’s channel in light of what he described as repeated and deliberate publication of contemptuous material. The petitioner claimed that without such action, the judiciary would continue to be exposed to organized ridicule in the name of comedy, leading to long-term erosion of institutional credibility..While the Court did not grant any of the substantive reliefs requested, it allowed the petitioner to pursue limited redress by formally approaching the competent authority under the 2009 IT Blocking Rules. The Bench also permitted the petitioner to seek information from government authorities regarding complaints about misuse of social media. "Needless to state that in case petitioner makes any such request, the same shall be supplied to him,” the Court said..Kiran Samant was represented by advocate Bahraiz Irani instructed by Shane Santos.Senior Advocate Darius Khambata appeared for Kunal Kamra.