Mumbai, Apr 16 (Reporter) The Bombay High Court on Wednesday granted protection (not to arrest or any corrective action) till the court passed any order on a plea moved by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, who is currently facing backlash for his controversial comments about Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde. During the hearing of a plea moved by Kamara seeking quashing of multiple FIRs (first information reports) against him following his satirical video and "gaddar" comment purportedly made against DCM Shinde, the division bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Shriram Modak noted, "Arguments concluded. In meantime as agreed by Public Prosecutor that summons are under 35(3) which specifically refers that arrest of person is not required, in that background arrest of this person does not arise. Matter reserved for orders till then petitioner shall not be arrested." In his plea, Kamra sought a stay on the proceedings arising out of the said FIR. The court was informed that the Madras HC has extended interim protection from arrest to Kamra which was extended from time to time till today. Senior advocate Navroz Seervai, who appeared on behalf of Kamra, told the court that the comedy clip falls within freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. He argued that it did not fall within the exceptions to freedom of speech. He submitted that the Supreme Court has, on various occasions, set aside improper attempts at censorship as mere threats of criminal action lead to self-censorship and create a chilling effect. He stated that the FIR against Kamra exemplify an attempt by the State at the behest of a political party to make an example of an artiste. While citing a recent Supreme Court order delivered in the case of Congress MP Imran Pratapgadhi (Imran Pratapgadhi versus State of Gujarat (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362), where the Supreme Court underscored the importance of protecting the freedom of speech and expression and reminded the Courts and the police of their duty to uphold the rights of persons expressing unpopular opinions. The counsel argued that the police did not apply their mind while registering the FIR. He submitted for 356(2) BNS for defamation, the person alleged to be defamed (Eknath Shinde) did not file the complaint. He also said that he is really concerned about the quashing and if court is inclined to grant some time, only one thing, his client has not once, twice or thrice but in writing offered to get a statement recorded virtually through video conferencing and his physical presence must not be insisted till the present petition is heard as death threats were received by his client. In the 146-page petition, Kamra challenged the legality, correctness and propriety of FIR registered at Khar police station on March 24, 2025, under sections 353(1)(B), 353(2) and 356(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by Shiv Sena MLA Muraji Patel. The FIR was later transferred to Khar police station in Mumbai. Though Kamra had not directly taken the Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde's name, the party workers allege that he had called Shinde a traitor while referencing to his split from the Shiv Sena. Offended by Kamra's remarks, a group of Shiv Sena workers had also vandalised Mumbai's Habitat studio, where the comedian had performed the show. Twelve people were arrested in connection with the violence that had erupted and were subsequently granted bail. While opposing the plea, the State counsel argued that Article 19 of the Constitution does not come into play when a cognisable offence is made out. Referring to the contents of the comedy show, the counsel said that it was not a police satire but 'malicious targeting'. Stating that there is a distinction between humorous criticism and malicious targeting, the counsel said Kamra was targeting one individual and thus it did not fall within the tenor of humorous criticism. On the threats received by Kamra, the State counsel stated the State would protect him. Although the counsel stated that Kamra did not disclose the threats he received. After the arguments, the High Court noted that Kamra's interim protection would be ending tomorrow. It stated that as the notice was issued under Section 35(3) BNSS, arrest is not necessary. The Court said to the State counsel, "Your notice is under 35(3), that intention to arrest is not there. We will record that. You can't run away from that...////...