Kunal Kamra, a stand-up comedian, recently faced charges by the Supreme Court where they have sued Kamra for criminal contempt. He is facing these charges for his multiple series of tweets, shared on Twitter where he has extensively criticized the Supreme Court for granting TV anchor, Arnav Goswami bail.
The Attorney who approved prosecution charges against Kunal was quoted as saying,
“It is time that people understand attacking the Supreme Court unjustifiably and brazenly will lead to punishment.”
The social media platform involved, Twitter was also dragged into the commotion. They were questioned on as to why the tweets hadn’t been removed from the platform. Twitter has refused to comment on the part. But these charges are just, one of many, which several comedians have faced over the years across the globe. Lenny Bruce, a famous comedian of the 1960s in the United States, was one of the first comedians to have charges pressed on him. He was arrested on obscenity charges in San Francisco and was also banned from performing in several cities. Legal woes were a frequent addition of his journey.
In India, people have observed that even harmless twitter comments can invite abuse or attacks on stand-up comedians. Not just that, in this current age, whatever one says on the internet, never really fades away. A lot of artists have faced criticism for something they said 2, or even 5 years ago and have been made to apologize for the same.
As we all know, The Constitution of India provides the right to freedom, given in article 19 with the view of guaranteeing individual rights that were considered vital by the framers of the constitution. The right to freedom in Article 19 guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, as one of its six freedoms.
What we are unaware of is clause 2 of Article 19, which states that “ Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India”. The inference we gain from studying our constitution highlights that, although 19 (2) is supposed to limit the range of the freedom of speech the citizens gain, it assigns this task to the court to determine what constitutes a “reasonable restriction”.
Normally this is an uncomplicated exercise since the court is a neutral party to the conflict of articles. But if the court is itself the victim seeking recompense for violation of its dignity can it also be the impartial judge trying the case. This is not only food for thought but also, a very crucial point of discussion for the entire nation, especially when the Court presses charges against comedians.
Source
Comments