A case for contempt? Kunal Kamra, the stand-up comedian taking on India’s Supreme Court

Kamra tells Shweta Sharma about being at the centre of a clash between India’s old-fashioned institutions and a lively, unapologetic new media

Kamra faces a potential jail term if he is found guilty of contempt of court (Screengrab/YouTube)

Indian stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra didn’t crack jokes about the country’s Supreme Court in order to get laughs. It was “sheer frustration” that drove him to post four tweets lambasting the court to his 1.7 million followers, he says. But it is  a decision that has now landed him with contempt charges.

At a hearing last week, the court decided to proceed with the charges against Kamra, even as it faces a huge backlog that ran into millions of cases even before the inevitable delays caused by the months-long coronavirus lockdown.

Speaking to The Independent, the Mumbai-based comedian says he branded the highest court in the land the “Supreme Joke” because he was outraged by its decision to fast track a bail hearing for the firebrand right-wing TV anchor Arnab Goswami.

Kamra, 32, tweeted that the judge overseeing those proceedings, Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, was no more than a “flight attendant serving champagne to first-class passengers”.

Goswami, who faces charges in relation to a 2018 suicide case, walked out of jail one week after his arrest having seen his bail plea referred to the Supreme Court at lightning speed. The national Bar Association said at the time that this could only be the result of an intervention from the Chief Justice of India himself.

Kamra and other liberal commentators asked why the court’s enthusiasm to uphold freedom of the press did not extend to the dozens of less well-connected journalists, activists and writers held in jail awaiting trial for months, if not years, in India’s overworked judicial system.

Kamra is not the only one to have criticised the Supreme Court over the perception that it is falling in line with the Narendra Modi government on the key decisions that matter to the ruling party.

And the court has shown it will not take such comments lying down, finding senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan guilty of “scandalising the court” and ordering him to pay a symbolic one rupee fine under contempt laws that date back to the British colonial era.

In recommending proceedings against Kamra for his tweets, the attorney general of India KK Venugopal said they “clearly crossed the line between humour and contempt”.

“It is time that people understand attacking the Supreme Court unjustifiably and brazenly will lead to punishment,” he said.

India has a rich history of satire: political cartoons critical of the government are widely shared on social media, and stand-up comedy has soared in popularity as a platform for poking fun at the powerful. But Kamra’s case raises a fundamental question: how far is too far in comedy, and does humour become taboo if it is wielded against the judiciary?

“They should not play subtle games. If they think they are beyond criticism, they should write this in the constitution and admit that ‘yes, we are the puppet of the ruling regime’,” Kamra says of the court’s judges.

Kamra started out in stand-up in 2013, quitting what he calls a “boring” 12-year career in the advertising industry to become one of the country’s best-known comedians, with a YouTube show called Shut Up Ya Kunal that is viewed by millions.

He cracks jokes compulsively, even when the stakes could not be higher – he faces a potential jail term if he is found guilty of contempt of court.

He has been picked on by the court, he says, precisely because of his fame, joking of the justices: “If I am a springboard for anyone excelling in their career, I am happy to do that. Who would have known them anyway?”

And like the lawyer Bhushan before him, he says he will not apologise to the court if ordered to do so.  

“I didn’t do it unconsciously. I felt it and I said it. I don’t think it deserves an apology. I am not hurting the sentiments of the marginalised or minority groups.”

It is precisely the idea of speaking out against elites and in support of those on the margins of Indian society that got Kamra into political comedy in the first place. His first foray into public controversy came with the death of Rohith Vemula in 2016, a student who allegedly killed himself because of caste discrimination on campus.

Kamra took issue with coverage of Vemula’s death on right-wing TV channels, not least Goswami’s own. “One year after Vemula died, he (Goswami) cussed the person who was institutionally murdered on primetime TV, just to absolve the BJP. He’s done other grossly pathetic things. But this one is unforgettable.”

It isn’t Kamra’s only run-in with the TV anchor. In January this year, he landed himself on the no-fly lists of most Indian airlines after confronting Goswami on a flight they shared, until he was asked to sit down by a flight attendant.

Kamra won’t stop joking about the Supreme Court’s handling of Goswami’s case now – even with the pending contempt charge, he says the situation is turning India into “a parody account of a democracy”.

And for Supreme Court lawyer and human rights defender Colin Gonsalves, the case gets to the heart of a clash between India’s old-fashioned institutions and new, freer forms of media.

“The Supreme Court has been taken aback by the kind of criticism being made, particularly over the last few years,” he says. “Our courts are not used to criticism, and certainly not to strident criticism.”

He claims many within the judicial system, perhaps even some judges themselves, would agree that there is some truth to the criticisms over how the court is being run. Nonetheless, they are uncomfortable with the way it is being expressed.

“It is largely a question of ego and prestige and hurt sentiments that prevail while undertaking an unnecessary action such as contempt,” he says.  

On Friday, a hearing agreeing to proceed with Kamra’s case took less than a minute, and he was not represented. The comedian now has six weeks to explain his position in writing, before a potential trial in the new year.