The Bombay High Court on Wednesday declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Shiv Sena (Shinde faction) MLA Kiran Samant, alleging that comedian Kunal Kamra misused digital platforms to circulate content that is scandalous, derogatory, and contemptuous of the Indian judiciary.

A Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik observed that Samant had not exhausted alternative remedies available under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, before approaching the Court.

“So far as the first relief claimed by the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has efficacious remedy provided to him under the 2009 Rules… The petitioner has not invoked this remedy and has approached the court seeking wide reliefs which cannot be granted,” the Court held, disposing of the plea while granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate government authorities.

The PIL accused Kamra of repeatedly posting content that undermines public faith in constitutional institutions under the guise of satire and free speech, thereby eroding trust in the judiciary for commercial benefit. Samant described Kamra as a businessman who monetizes outrage by targeting institutions in his digital content and public appearances.

In support of his argument, Samant cited a 2020 social media post where Kamra allegedly made an obscene gesture toward the then Chief Justice of India—a post that had previously led to contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court. The petition also pointed to Kamra’s 2025 comedy special, Naya Bharat, which allegedly accused agencies like the Enforcement Directorate and the CBI of operating as political tools of the ruling party.

According to the petitioner, such acts go beyond protected free speech and fall under “commercial speech” that violates Article 19(2) of the Constitution by breaching permissible limits related to public order and contempt of court.

Among the wide-ranging reliefs sought, Samant urged the Court to order the removal of objectionable content from digital platforms, direct Google LLC to suspend Kamra’s YouTube channel, and mandate the creation of a Social Media Vigilance and Censorship Committee. He also sought an affidavit from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology detailing measures taken under the IT Act to regulate digital content.

The Court, however, made it clear that the judiciary cannot create censorship mechanisms, as such policy decisions fall within the executive’s domain. “The petitioner himself is a lawmaker, and it is open for him to take appropriate action,” the Bench remarked.

While declining to grant substantive relief, the Court permitted the petitioner to pursue remedies under the IT Blocking Rules and to seek information from relevant government departments regarding social media misuse. “Needless to state that in case petitioner makes any such request, the same shall be supplied to him,” the Bench clarified.

Advocate Bahraiz Irani, instructed by Shane Santos, appeared for Kiran Samant. Senior Advocate Darius Khambata represented Kunal Kamra.