'Apology Would Set a Bad Precedent': Kunal Kamra in Privilege Committee Hearing
Kamra’s refusal to apologise to the Maharashtra Legislative Council raises concerns about legislative privilege.
advertisement
On 9 April 2026, comedian Kunal Kamra appeared before the privilege committee of the Maharashtra Legislative Council after being summoned for remarks made about Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde. Kamra declined to offer an unconditional apology, stating that such an act would not be sincere and could set a precedent affecting artistic freedom. The committee’s proceedings stem from a breach of privilege motion initiated in response to Kamra’s satirical content posted online in March 2025.
As reported by Scroll, the breach of privilege motion was filed by BJP legislator Pravin Darekar, who argued that Kamra’s jokes undermined the dignity of the House. The privilege committee also summoned Sushma Andhare, spokesperson for the Shiv Sena’s UBT faction, for her support of Kamra. The committee’s authority is rooted in legislative privilege, a provision inherited from the colonial British legal system.
Legislative privilege in India is derived from constitutional provisions that mirror those of the United Kingdom, specifically Article 105 and Article 194, which grant legislatures powers, privileges, and immunities. Analysis showed that these privileges were intended to protect legislative independence from executive interference, not to shield members from public criticism or satire.
Despite the constitutional framework, the scope and limits of legislative privilege remain undefined in Indian law. The Constituent Assembly debated the need for codification, but Parliament has not enacted a law to clarify these powers. Coverage revealed that this lack of definition allows privilege committees broad discretion, raising concerns about arbitrariness and the potential for curtailing free speech.
“I could not tender an ‘unconditional apology’ as that would not be sincere and set a terrible precedent for artists and their freedom,” Kamra stated before the committee.
The Supreme Court of India has addressed the boundaries of legislative privilege in several cases. In the 1964 Keshav Singh case, the Court held that legislative privileges are not absolute and must operate within constitutional limits. Reporting indicated that the Court reaffirmed this position in the 2007 Raja Ram Pal case, stating that privilege actions are subject to judicial review if they violate constitutional mandates or are mala fide.
Procedural safeguards for those summoned by privilege committees are not uniformly defined. Further examination highlighted that punishments, including reprimand or imprisonment, are left to the discretion of the House, which can lead to inconsistent outcomes and uncertainty for non-members such as artists and critics.
Calls for reform have focused on the need for codification of legislative privilege to ensure transparency and accountability. As details emerged, experts noted that codification would help differentiate between obstruction of legislative functioning and external criticism, and would establish clear procedures and proportionality in privilege proceedings.
“No power should remain undefined for decades. India’s Parliament and state legislatures should safeguard their dignity by enacting provisions that reflect the values of the Constitution,” legal scholars stated.
The United Kingdom has reformed its legislative privilege provisions, narrowing their scope and excluding the use of privilege to punish external criticism. Recent developments in India have renewed debate on whether similar reforms are necessary to balance legislative dignity with constitutional rights to free speech and expression.
Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.