Comedy, Controversy, and Control: The Battle Over Free Expression in India

 

Comedy, Controversy, and Control: The Battle Over Free Expression in India

       By Abhay Pandey 

Welcome to this New India, a country that has made remarkable progress in various fields—infrastructure, technology, global recognition, and economic achievements. However, while we take pride in these advancements, we must also ask: What about the state of free expression? Gone are the days when artists, celebrities, and TV channels could freely criticize politicians or create parodies of the government without fear. The recent Kunal Kamra controversy is yet another example of how political satire is increasingly under scrutiny. Kamra’s remarks may be debatable, and people are free to agree or disagree with his views, but the government’s response vandalism, threats, and administrative action cannot be justified in a democracy.

This raises a serious concern: How can a government, which should be tolerant of criticism, take such arbitrary actions? Meanwhile, the public’s reaction to controversial content is also telling. The backlash against India’s Got Latent shows also adds another perspective. The outrage against the show went viral, sparking moral debates and demands for regulation. In this context, the bigger question arises: Is the government's intent to regulate online content truly in the public interest, or is it simply another tool for political control

Political Satire Under Attack: The Kunal Kamra Controversy

Political satire is a widely accepted and celebrated form of expression in democratic societies around the world. Countries with strong democratic values encourage comedians and artists to critique, mock, and challenge those in power. However, in India, there is a long history of governments attempting to control dissent—regardless of which party is in power. In Kunal Kamra’s case, his remarks during a satirical performance may have been controversial or even offensive to supporters of Maharashtra’s Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, but does that justify vandalism or government action against him? No. Violence and intimidation are not legitimate responses.

What’s more concerning is that the government’s response seems to be strategically aimed at justifying stricter content regulation. By allowing outrage to spiral, authorities can push the idea that regulating online content is the only way forward, gaining public support for greater control over digital speech. At the same time, Kamra himself is no stranger to political alignment. In 2020, he openly sided with one faction of politics, inviting Shiv Sena’s Sanjay Raut to mock the illegal demolition of Kangana Ranaut’s office. His selective criticism raises questions about whether he is truly neutral or just another political player using satire selectively.

That said, the principle of free speech remains absolute. Kamra, like any citizen, has the right to express his views—whether or not people agree with them. However, his case is not unique; many artists, comedians, and filmmakers have faced retribution for speaking against those in power. The bigger issue at play isn’t just about Kamra, but rather the increasing intolerance towards satire and political criticism.

One of the biggest problems in India’s content regulation debate is the failure to distinguish satire from defamation. Satire uses humor, irony, and exaggeration to criticize power structures—it may offend, but it isn’t a crime. Defamation, on the other hand, involves deliberate falsehoods meant to harm reputations. The lines between the two are often blurred, leading to legal action against comedians and artists. If satire keeps being treated as a legal offense, can we still call ourselves a democracy that tolerates dissent? in India. 

Moral Outrage and Entertainment: The India’s Got Latent Debate

A few months ago, Samay Raina’s YouTube show, India’s Got Latent, found itself at the center of a heated content regulation debate. The controversy intensified when Ranveer Allahbadia made an offensive remark on the show, sparking widespread backlash.

When discussing this issue, we must consider morality and societal values. There is no justification for Ranveer Allahbadia’s absurd and inappropriate comment, and just because the show was popular, it doesn’t automatically make its content acceptable. India’s Got Latent has often been criticized for vulgarity and cheap humor, raising valid concerns about the kind of content being served to the public. Content creators have a responsibility to ensure that their work aligns with ethical and moral values, especially when it influences India’s younger generation.

However, the government and the public’s reaction to the controversy exposes a duality in their approach. The same figures who praised, awarded, and publicly recognized Ranveer Allahbadia—even using his platform for wider outreach—immediately turned against him after the incident. Instead of allowing space for apology and correction, he was vilified, threatened, and even his family was dragged into the outrage. This raises an important question: Should content creators be held accountable? Yes. But should they be treated as criminals with no scope for redemption? The hypocrisy of selective outrage—first elevating influencers, then completely disowning them over one controversy—shows how reactionary and inconsistent our approach to content regulation has become.

While free expression is crucial, content creators can’t ignore the impact of what they put out. In an age where digital media shapes opinions, creators—whether comedians, influencers, or filmmakers—have a responsibility to balance artistic freedom with ethical considerations. Shock value and controversy may drive views, but should they come at the cost of public discourse? Shows like India’s Got Latent thrive on irreverence, but when lines are crossed, accountability shouldn’t be dismissed as censorship. The challenge is ensuring that responsibility doesn’t turn into forced moral policing—content should provoke thought, not reckless outrage.

 The Selective Attention to Content Regulation

Beyond high-profile controversies like Kunal Kamra’s satire or the India’s Got Latent debate, there are numerous cases that neither the government nor the public seem interested in—simply because they do not generate mass outrage or political advantage. One of the biggest concerns today is the unchecked spread of vulgarity and absurd content on OTT platforms and social media. Many content creators thrive on shock value, producing material that has little artistic or social merit but heavily influences young audiences. Yet, these cases rarely spark meaningful discussions on regulation.

At the same time, independent content creators who focus on unveiling hidden realities, questioning mainstream narratives, or highlighting neglected issues often operate in a grey area. If stricter content regulations are implemented, these creators may become the next target. The government’s increasing control over digital spaces could result in a situation where even a YouTuber or independent journalist must navigate a complicated legal framework just to express their views.

Legal landscape 

Content regulation in India is governed by multiple laws and guidelines that apply to different forms of media. Traditional media like films and television are regulated under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. For digital platforms and social media, the IT Rules, 2021 introduced a three-tier grievance redressal system and increased government oversight. While these laws aim to prevent misinformation, obscenity, and hate speech, they have also been criticized for vague definitions and the potential for misuse. The upcoming Digital India Act is expected to further redefine online content regulation, possibly bringing stricter controls on social media and OTT platforms. However, the challenge remains in balancing regulation with the fundamental right to free speech guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

Way Ahead: Striking a Balance Between Regulation and Freedom

The content regulation debate in India must move beyond political interests and moral outrage to focus on a balanced and transparent approach. While preventing misinformation, hate speech, and extreme vulgarity is essential, it should not come at the cost of free speech and artistic expression. A middle-ground approach can be achieved through many ways. 

Clear and Transparent Guidelines where the government must define clear, objective criteria to differentiate between harmful content and legitimate criticism or satire. And platforms should be encouraged to self-regulate through independent grievance mechanisms, ensuring accountability without political interference. Laws regulating content should include checks and balances to prevent their misuse against journalists, comedians, and independent creators who challenge mainstream narratives.

Protecting Expression in a Democratic Society

India is a thriving democracy, and the right to free expression is its cornerstone. True democracy is not about suppressing dissent or censoring satire, but about engaging with diverse perspectives, even when they are uncomfortable. While reasonable regulation is necessary, it must not become a political weapon to silence voices that challenge power. The way forward is not excessive control but responsible freedom—where artists, comedians, and content creators can express themselves without fear, and society can engage in meaningful discussions rather than outrage-driven censorship. The ultimate goal should be to foster a culture of critical thinking and open dialogue, rather than one of fear .

ABHAY PANDEY 

Undergraduate Student of political science 

Ramjas college, Delhi university 

Follow me on instagram @abhaypandey623