‘The suggestion that my tweets could shake the foundations of the most powerful court in the world is an over-estimation of my abilities,’ the humorist says in reply to contempt discover.
Stand-up comic Kunal Kamra, facing contempt for scandalising the Supreme Court together with his tweets, stated the phenomenon of “taking offence” to comedy or satire has been elevated to the status of a much-loved indoor sport in a rising tradition of intolerance.
“The suggestion that my tweets could shake the foundations of the most powerful court in the world is an over-estimation of my abilities… Just as the Supreme Court values the faith public places in it, it should also trust the public not to form its opinions of the court on the basis of a few jokes on Twitter… My tweets were not published with the intention of diminishing the faith of the people in the highest court,” Mr. Kamra stated in a six-page reply to the suo motu contempt towards him.
Taking offence was now seen as a “fundamental right”, Mr. Kamra stated.
“Comedians like Munawar Faruqui are jailed for jokes they did not make. School students are interrogated for sedition,” Mr. Kamra informed the Supreme Court.
A Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan will hear the case on Friday.
‘Cardinal constitutional value’
“Hope the court will demonstrate that free speech is a cardinal constitutional value. If the powerful are unable to tolerate rebuke and criticism, we will be reduced to a country of incarcerated artists and flourishing lapdogs,” Mr. Kamra stated.
Jokes wanted no defence, he wrote.
Jokes have been primarily based on a comic’s notion. His job was to share his notion together with his viewers and make them chortle.
“Most people do not react to jokes that do not make them laugh. They ignore them like our political leaders ignore their critics. That is where the life of a joke must end,” he informed the Supreme Court.
The extra consideration you paid to a joke, the extra credible it turned.
“The public faith in the judiciary is founded on the institution’s own actions, and not on any criticism or commentary about it,” Mr. Kamra stated.
He stated constitutional workplaces — together with judicial workplaces — wanted no safety from jokes. The comic stated he didn’t purchase the argument that judges could be unable to carry out their features simply because they have been the topic of satire or comedy.
Irreverence and hyperbole have been important instruments for the comedic enterprise. A comic book raised public points in his personal distinctive means. Language and elegance weren’t meant to insult however to draw consideration. “Brevity is the soul of comedy, though it may not be a familiar concept for the legal community,” he quipped.
“Through my work, I attempt to abide by comedy’s tenet of comforting the afflicted, and afflicting the comfortable. Humour attempts to blunt the grimness of the situation,” the comic’s affidavit stated.
The case listening to has been adjourned by two weeks.