The case of Abhyudaya Mishra vs.

Kunal Kamra (2020) revolves around contempt

proceedings initiated against stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra for his tweets criticizing the
Supreme Court of India. These tweets were posted following the Court's decision to grant
interim bail to journalist Arnab Goswami

Background:

In November 2020, Kunal Kamra posted a series of tweets that were perceived as derogatory
towards the Supreme Court. One notable tweet depicted the Supreme Court building in saffron
hues with a flag of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) hoisted atop, insinuating bias
towards the ruling party. These tweets led to multiple individuals seeking the Attorney-General
of India's consent to initiate contempt proceedings against Kamra. Attorney-General K.K.
Venugopal granted consent, stating that the tweets were in "bad taste" and "clearly cross the
line between humor and contempt of court." Abhyudaya Mishra v. Kunal Kamra. This refers
to a contempt of court case filed against comedian Kunal Kamra by lawyer Abhyudaya Mishra
in the Supreme Court of India. The legal profession is considered to be a noble profession and
therefore, it is the duty of society to uphold the integrity and the dignity of the courts. A certain
degree of decorum should be maintained towards the judges and the courts. Any act to lower
the dignity of the court in the eyes of the people should be condemned. Thereby, to insulate the
institution from unfair criticism and prevent a fall in the judiciary’s reputation in the public eye,
the concept of contempt of court has been instituted. Contempt of court could be largely defined
as wilful disobedience to court orders as well as interference with the administration of justice
and overt threats to judges. The trial for this case started in 2020 and is still going on at the
present day. The concept of showing contempt for the court, on the other hand, has been brought
to the forefront as a result of this case. There have been claims made that Kunal Kamra, a well-
known stand-up comedian, sullied the court's reputation by undermining the authority of the
court via the publication of tweets on social media. In December 2020, Advocate Abhyudaya
Mishra and other two Law Students filed three contempt petitions against comedian Kunal
Kamra in the Supreme Court. The tweets in issue voiced their disagreement with the manner
in which the Supreme Court handled the suicide case involving Republic TV's leader, Arnab
Goswami. In his approval of the beginning of contempt proceedings against Kamra, Attorney
General KK Venugopalan stated that the latter's tweets were in poor taste and that the general
public needed to learn that openly insulting the Supreme Court would result in consequences.
Venugopalan also stated that the public needed to learn that Kamra's tweets were in poor taste.
In January 2021, the respondent stated that the jokes are not reality and do not pretend to be
such, and that the idea that such assertions may undermine the basis of the Supreme Court was
an exaggeration. The respondent also stated that the idea that such assertions may undermine
the basis of the Supreme Court was an exaggeration. The court allowed the parties to submit
the rejoinders they requested in response to the respondent's reply.

Petitioners' Argument: In the case of Abhyudaya Mishra vs. Kunal Kamra (2020), the
petitioner, Abhyudaya Mishra, raised the following key arguments:

1. Defamation and Harm to Reputation – The petitioner contended that the respondent,
Kunal Kamra, made statements and social media posts that were defamatory in nature.
These statements allegedly harmed the petitioner's reputation, causing personal and
professional damage.

2. Public Influence and Misuse of Platform – The petitioner argued that the respondent,
being a well-known comedian and public figure, misused his social media platform to
spread misleading and offensive content targeting the petitioner. The influence and
reach of the respondent’s statements were significant, amplifying the damage caused.

3. Freedom of Speech vs. Responsible Expression – While acknowledging the right to

freedom of speech, the petitioner asserted that this right is not absolute. Speech that is
defamatory, misleading, or intended to harm another individual’s reputation must be
subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution.

4. Mental Agony and Harassment – The petitioner submitted that the respondent’s
remarks caused severe mental distress and amounted to online harassment. This
resulted in an undue burden on the petitioner, who was subjected to public ridicule and
abuse.
5. Legal Precedents on Defamation and Free Speech – The petitioner cited various
precedents where courts have held that defamatory statements, especially those made
on public platforms, are actionable offenses. The argument emphasized that while satire
and criticism are allowed, they must not cross the boundary into defamation or personal
attacks.

6. Prayer for Legal Remedies – In light of the above arguments, the petitioner sought
legal remedies, including:

o A public apology from the respondent.

o Deletion of defamatory content.

o Monetary compensation for reputational damage.

These arguments formed the basis of the petitioner’s case against Kunal Kamra, alleging that
his statements were defamatory and exceeded the permissible limits of free speech.

Respondent's Counter-Argument:
Respondent’s Argument (Kunal Kamra's Defence)

1. Freedom of Speech and Expression

o Kamra asserted that his tweets were an exercise of his fundamental right
under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

o He argued that satire, humour, and criticism are essential elements of a

democratic society and should not be viewed as contempt unless they pose a
real threat to the administration of justice.

2. No Real Obstruction to Justice

o The respondent contended that his tweets did not obstruct the functioning of the
Supreme Court or influence any ongoing proceedings.

o He maintained that contempt of court should be applied only when there is clear
and present danger to the justice delivery system, which was not the case with
his tweets.
3. Criticism vs. Contempt

o Kamra’s legal team argued that criticism of the judiciary, even if sharp, does not
automatically amount to contempt unless it substantially impairs public
confidence in the judiciary.

o They cited previous cases where courts had upheld the right to critique judicial
decisions as part of healthy public discourse.
4. Precedents on Judicial Criticism

o The defence referred to Supreme Court judgments that emphasized the

importance of tolerance for dissent and criticism in a democracy.
o Kamra pointed out that public figures, including judges, should have a higher
threshold for criticism due to their role in public life.
5. Intent Behind the Tweets

o Kamra argued that his tweets were meant to be satirical and humorous,
targeting judicial decisions rather than individual judges.

o He stated that humour and satire should not be viewed as a direct attack on the
judiciary but rather as a form of public engagement with important issues.
Conclusion

The respondent, Kunal Kamra, defended his tweets as legitimate criticism protected under
freedom of expression and argued that they did not amount to contempt of court. He urged the
judiciary to adopt a liberal approach towards satirical content and dissent in a democracy.
Legal Precedents:
The case touches upon the delicate balance between freedom of speech, as enshrined in Article
19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, and the limitations imposed to uphold the dignity and
authority of the judiciary. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, defines and limits the powers of
certain courts in punishing contempt and aims to safeguard the administration of justice.
Previous judgments have underscored that while criticism of judicial decisions is permissible,
actions that tend to scandalize or lower the authority of the court may constitute contempt.

Contempt of court has not been expressly defined in any Act as such, but glimpses of the same
can be observed under several provisions. Before the commencement of the Constitution of
India, contempt of court was not much recognised even though some laws did find their
existence in its provisions. But after the Constitution came into force, contempt was made as
one of the restrictions on the Right to Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a). Therefore,
some Articles have contemplated the concept of contempt of court

• As per Article 129 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is empowered, under the
capacity of being considered as a court of record, to punish for any contempt of itself.
• By virtue of Article 215 of the Constitution, the High Courts, being declared as a court
of record, shall have the power to punish for contempt of itself.
• Further, Article 142(2) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has been enriched with
the power to pass any order punishing the contempt of itself.
• Later the Contempt of court act 1971 was passed. According to the act, the term
contempt has not been expressly defined rather it has explained the different types of
contempt.
• Under the Act, both the High Courts as well as the Supreme Court are empowered by
the Constitution to punish the person for contempt of court in accordance with the
provisions.

Civil Contempt

According to Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, civil contempt means wilful
disobedience by a person to any of the court’s orders, judgment, decree, direction, writ or wilful
breach of an undertaking given by a person to the court. This clearly specifies that if any order
passed by the court has not been observed by the concerned person, then he will be liable for
contempt of court. Further, if a person performs an act in contravention to the undertaking
given to the court, then also he will be liable under the contempt of court.

Criminal Contempt
As per Section 2(c) of the Act, criminal contempt means the publication of any act that
scandalises the integrity and lowers the authority of the court, prejudices or interferes with the
due course of any judicial proceedings or that interferes or obstructs the administration of
justice. Publication of such an act can be either in words, spoken or written, in sign language
or by visible representations.
Court Proceedings and Ruling:
On December 18, 2020, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash
Reddy, and M.R. Shah, issued a notice to Kunal Kamra, requiring him to respond within six
weeks. The Court, however, exempted Kamra from appearing in person. Subsequent
proceedings involved the filing of affidavits and rejoinders. For instance, on January 29, 2021,
the Court acknowledged the filing of an affidavit on behalf of the respondent and granted the
petitioner's counsel two weeks to review it. Similarly, on February 22, 2021, the Court granted
four weeks for the filing of a rejoinder affidavit.

As of January 2023, the case was still pending, with hearings adjourned on multiple occasions.
For instance, on January 5, 2023, the matter was listed before a bench excluding the Chief
Justice, and on January 23, 2023, it was adjourned by a week upon the respondent's counsel's
request.

Conclusion:
The Abhyudaya Mishra vs. Kunal Kamra case underscores the ongoing debate between the
right to freedom of speech and the need to maintain the dignity of judicial institutions. While
the judiciary acknowledges the importance of constructive criticism, it also seeks to prevent
actions that may undermine public confidence in the legal system. The outcome of this case is
anticipated to provide further clarity on the boundaries of permissible expression concerning
judicial commentary.