Laughter or Liability: A Legal Analysis of Defamation, Sedition, and Vulgarity in Stand-Up Comedy and Social Media Influencers Versus the Right to Free Speech in India

Abstract

In India, freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but its limits are constantly tested in the digital age and entertainment industry. Stand-up comedians and social media influencers have large audiences and often use satire, humor, and personal opinions to comment on politics and society. However, their content sometimes crosses into defamation, sedition, obscenity, or misogyny. This research paper analyzes major legal cases, constitutional provisions, and the influence of ancient patriarchal texts like Manusmriti on influencer content. Hence, analyzing the balance between humor and responsibility, and suggesting reforms to protect both creative expression and individual dignity is the main motive of writing the paper. The paper suggests legal reforms, judicial oversight, and public awareness to balance free speech with respect for dignity and public order. 

Introduction

In recent years, stand-up comedy has become very popular in India. It is no longer just about making people laugh, it has turned into a way for comedians to talk about important social and political issues. Many comedians now joke about sensitive subjects like religion, caste, politics, and what is considered right or wrong in society. People enjoy this bold style of humor because it makes them think and laugh at the same time. However, these comedians often find themselves in trouble with the law because some people feel offended by their jokes. The main problem here is finding the balance between the right to free speech and the rules set by the government. According to the Indian Constitution, Article 19(1)(a) gives every citizen the right to speak freely and express their ideas. But this freedom is not unlimited. Article 19(2) says the government can place reasonable limits on this freedom if the content is seen as defamatory, seditious, obscene, or harmful to public morality.

A growing concern is how some comedians and social media influencers misuse this freedom of speech to spread unhealthy and misogynistic remarks against women. Instead of promoting healthy discussions or humor, they sometimes make offensive jokes that reinforce negative stereotypes or insult women, which further encourages patriarchy and gender discrimination. This issue is often overlooked and remains unaddressed, even though it affects public attitudes and contributes to a culture where sexism is normalized. This paper will explore whether stand-up comedians and social media influencers should be legally responsible for such harmful content or if they should be fully protected under free speech.

Thesis Statement and Research Methodology

The aim is to understand where the line should be drawn in today’s India, and argue that freedom of expression must be protected, but not at the cost of dignity, equality, and public order. This research is mainly doctrinal and analytical. 

Legal Framework 

In India, Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression. This allows people to freely express their thoughts, ideas, and opinions, which is an important part of a democratic society. However, this freedom is not unlimited. Article 19(2) allows the government to place reasonable restrictions on free speech to protect the country’s security, public order, decency, morality, and the reputation of individuals.

Some of the important laws often used in cases involving comedians and social media influencers are as follows:

• Defamation: Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) now Sections 356 and Section 356(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) punishes anyone who makes or publishes a statement that harms another person’s reputation, with imprisonment up to 2 years in prison, a fine, or both. Section 356(2) of BNS: Covers causing hurt or injury to a public servant while they are performing their official duty.
• Sedition: Section 124A of the IPC now Section 124A Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)  punishes any speech that creates hatred or disaffection against the government. Punishment can be life imprisonment or up to 3 years in prison. Courts have clarified that simply criticizing the government does not count as sedition unless it incites violence.
•  Obscenity: Section 292 of the IPC now Section 296 of BNS which deals with obscene content in print or public places punishes obscene acts or songs performed in public places that disturb public decency or morality.
• Malicious Act: Section 295A of the IPC now Section 299 of BNS criminalizes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings by insulting a person’s religion or religious beliefs.
• Enmity: Section 153A of the IPC now Section 196 of BNS punishes acts that promote enmity between different groups on the basis of religion, race, place of birth, or language, and actions that are likely to disturb public harmony.
•  Prohibition on Obscene Materials: Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000: Prohibits the publication or transmission of obscene material online. Moreover, Section 67A of the IT Act, 2000, Specifically targets the publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit acts or conduct online.
• Offensive Online Messages: Section 66A of the IT Act (now invalid); Previously, this section punished sending offensive messages online, but it was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 for being unconstitutional and vague.

Judicial Interpretation

Important Cases Involving Comedians and Social Media Influencers

• Munawar Faruqui : Arrest in Indore (2021)

During a stand-up show in Indore in 2021, comedian Munawar Faruqui was arrested. The reason was that he was accused of making offensive remarks about Hindu gods and Union Minister Amit Shah. The police charged him under hate speech laws in India. Specifically, they used Section 295A of IPC now Section 299 of BNS, which punishes anyone who deliberately hurts religious feelings, and Section 153A of IPC now Section 196 of BNS, which punishes actions that promote enmity between different groups. Later, the Supreme Court of India granted him bail, but he was not officially acquitted. This case got a lot of media attention and raised questions about freedom of expression versus religious sensitivity.

• Kunal Kamra : Defamation Case (2025)

In 2025, comedian Kunal Kamra released a stand-up show that got into serious trouble. His show allegedly contained remarks that were seen as defamatory towards Maharashtra’s Deputy Chief Minister, Eknath Shinde. An FIR was filed against Kamra under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, specifically under Sections 353(1)(b) and 353(2), which deal with making statements that could cause public mischief, and Section 356(2), related to defamation. This case highlighted how political leaders are sensitive to public criticism and how defamation laws are often used to control dissent.

• Vir Das : “Two Índias” Monologue (2021)

In 2021, popular comedian Vir Das performed a special monologue called “Two Indias” at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. The performance criticized some social and political issues in India and became very controversial. Following the performance, legal notices were sent to him, and there was massive public backlash. The main concern was whether his satire crossed the line of national pride or hurt religious sentiments. He faced potential legal trouble under Section 153A and Section 196 addresses promoting disharmony between groups, Section 295A and Section 198A targets deliberate insult to religious feelings, and Section 505 and Section 200 relates to statements intended to cause fear or alarm to the public of the Indian Penal Code and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita respectively , which focus on promoting enmity between groups and hurting religious feelings.

• Samay Raina & Ranveer Allahbadia : “India’s Got Latent” Show (2025)

In 2025, two popular content creators, Samay Raina and Ranveer Allahbadia, hosted a show called “India’s Got Latent.” During one episode, an obscene joke was made, which led to the Maharashtra Cyber Police filing a case against them. The legal action was based on Section 67 (publishing obscene material) and Section 67A (publishing material containing sexually explicit acts) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Both Raina and Allahbadia were called in for questioning. This case showed how content that is considered “adult humor” can be risky, especially when the definition of “obscene” is so vague.

• Sedition Charges for Social Media Posts (2021)

In 2021, two people protesting in support of farmers were accused of sedition for sharing old videos of a different protest on social media. They were charged under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code now Section 152 of BNS, which punishes any act that creates hatred or disaffection against the government. Even though these were just social media posts, the government treated them as serious offenses. This case showed how sedition laws are sometimes misused to silence voices, even when no real violence or unrest is promoted.

These cases show the tricky situation comedians and influencers face in India today. On one side, they have the right to express opinions and make people laugh. On the other, they constantly have to worry about crossing vague legal boundaries, facing defamation, sedition, obscenity, or hate speech charges.

Misogyny, Patriarchy, and the Law

One of the biggest problems today is the rise of misogyny disguised as “humor.” Many comedians and social media influencers use their platforms to tell sexist jokes or promote harmful stereotypes about women. They often treat it as harmless entertainment, simply trying to get laughs. But these so-called jokes are far from innocent. They play a role in reinforcing gender discrimination, strengthening patriarchal ideas, and normalizing disrespect towards women in society.

This issue is deeply rooted in India’s patriarchal system, which has historically placed women in a subordinate position. Ancient texts like the Manusmriti, which reflect traditional patriarchal views, have long influenced how society views women as inferior and subject to male authority. Even though modern India rejects such outdated notions, the cultural influence still lingers. Misogynistic jokes are a modern reflection of these old ideas, perpetuating the belief that it is acceptable to demean women in public discourse, all under the guise of “humor.”

Surprisingly, there is no specific law in India that directly tackles misogyny as a systemic crime. General laws like defamation or obscenity are sometimes used against offensive content, but they don’t specifically address sexist jokes or posts. The Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) helps women facing harassment in the workplace, but it doesn’t apply to public jokes or online content. Still, courts have made it clear that spreading hate or offensive remarks about women crosses the line of reasonable free speech. When a joke insults or demeans women based purely on their gender, it can be treated as defamation or obscenity.

The current laws are vague in many places. Terms like “obscenity” or “hurting religious sentiments” are unclear and open to different interpretations. This creates fear among comedians and influencers. They can face legal trouble even when their intention is not harmful. What India needs today is a clear and strong legal provision specifically against misogyny in public speech or online content. This will help protect women, promote responsible expression, and create a healthy balance between freedom of speech and social responsibility.

Impact of Online Harassment on Women

Social media audiences often misuse their right to freedom of speech by ganging up to slut-shame women, attacking them for their appearance, lifestyle, or opinions. Instead of constructive criticism, many comments are filled with abusive language, body-shaming, and personal attacks. This online harassment does not remain virtual but also spreads into real life, causing severe mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, and social isolation. Studies show that a large number of women targeted by online abuse suffer from psychological distress.

In extreme cases, public shaming on social media has led to suicides or even honor killings. For example, in 2019, a young woman in India committed suicide after being humiliated online over a personal photo leak. In another tragic case, daughters were killed by family members because of rumors spread on social media about their character. A poignant example is the tragic case of Radhika Yadav, a 25-year-old state-level tennis player from Gurugram, Haryana. In July 2025, Radhika was murdered by her father, Deepak Yadav, allegedly due to disputes over her social media presence and tennis coaching career. The incident sparked widespread discussion on the impact of societal pressures and online scrutiny on women’s lives.

Another similar case of Arju (2025) Honor Killing in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. In Muzaffarnagar, 19-year-old Arju was allegedly murdered by her father, Gayur, due to her defiance toward an arranged marriage and suspicion of a secret relationship. Gayur reportedly isolated Arju before committing the crime. The case underscores the dangers of societal expectations and the misuse of social media to monitor and control women’s lives. 

According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), there was an 11% rise in cybercrimes against women in India from 2021 to 2022. A study by UN Women found that 38% of women have experienced online violence, with 85% of those who experienced online violence reporting that it had a negative impact on their well-being. Also, The Economist Intelligence Unit reported that 85% of women globally have experienced online violence, including threats of physical and sexual violence. Between April and July 2025, Mizoram’s women helpline received 7,481 calls reporting abuse, including online harassment and social media attacks.

Conclusion

Stand-up comedians and social media influencers have the right to freedom of expression, but it is not absolute. When their content crosses into defamation, sedition, vulgarity, or misogyny, it harms individual dignity and public order. The influence of ancient patriarchal texts like Manusmriti continues to shape dangerous online behavior. India must introduce Specific Anti Misogyny Law criminalizing misogynistic digital content. Courts should apply consistent tests to differentiate between satire and defamation. Educate people to critically understand the difference between harmful misogyny and social critique. Government and platforms should issue clear guidelines for influencers to define what is acceptable content versus what is not. Independent bodies should monitor harmful content trends and suggest reforms by time to time. 

Bibliography

• Gautam Bhatia, Offend, Shock, or Disturb: Free Speech under the Indian Constitution (Oxford University Press 2016).
• Patrick Olivelle, Manu’s Code of Law: A Critical Edition and Translation of the Mānava-Dharmaśāstra (Oxford University Press 2005).
• Uma Chakravarti, Gendering Caste through a Feminist Lens (Sage Publications 2018).
• Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Legal Research Methodology (LexisNexis 2022).
• Madhav Khosla, India’s Founding Moment: The Constitution of a Most Surprising Democracy (Harvard University Press 202
• Rina Ramdev, ‘Comedy as Social Commentary in Contemporary India’ (2020) 55(2) Economic and Political Weekly 12.
• Shreya Jani, ‘Patriarchy, Misogyny and Indian Pop Culture’ (2021) 28(3) Indian Journal of Gender Studies 341.
• Nisha Pahuja, ‘Sexism and Stereotypes in Indian Digital Content’ (2022) 12(4) International Journal of Media Studies 88.
• Shifali Tripathi, ‘Humour or Harm? Gendered Impact of Stand-Up Comedy in India’ (2023) 15(1) Indian Law Review 41.
• Vivek Reddy, ‘Social Media and Sedition: The Farmer Protest Cases’ (2021) 34(2) Indian Journal of Constitutional Law 65.
• Rina Agarwal, ‘Persistent Patriarchy: The Legacy of Manusmriti in Modern India’ (2020) 18(2) South Asia Journal 73.
• Rina Agarwal, ‘Social Media and Honor Crimes: A Gendered Perspective’ (2025) 18(3) South Asia Journal 92.
• Law Commission of India, Report No 267: Hate Speech (March 2017).
• Law Commission of India, Report No 273: Free Speech and Regulation of Online Content (August 2018).
• National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India Report 2022 (Ministry of Home Affairs 2023).
• UNESCO, Online Harassment and Mental Health (Policy Brief, April 2023).
• UNESCO, Digital Literacy and Online Harassment: Building Critical Skills (Policy Paper, 2023).
• UN Women, Cyber Violence against Women and Girls: A Global Report (2023) .
• Economist Intelligence Unit, Measuring the Global Scale of Online Violence against Women (2023).
• Mizoram Women’s Helpline Data Report (July 2025) [On file with Ministry of Women & Child Development
• Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1.
• Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955.
• Aveek Sarkar v State of West Bengal (2014) 4 SCC 257.
• State of Punjab v Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384.
• Subramanian Swamy v Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221.
• Munawar Faruqui v State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) SCC OnLine SC 132
• The Constitution of India, art 19(1)(a), art 19(2).
• Indian Penal Code 1860, ss 124A, 153A, 292, 295A, 499–500, 505.
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, ss 152, 196, 296, 299, 356, 356(1), 356(2), 198A, 200, 353(1)(a), 353(2).
• Information Technology Act 2000, ss 66A, 67, 67A.
• Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act 2013, s 2(o).
• Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021
• Aishwarya S Iyer, ‘Munawar Faruqui Arrest: Comedian Jailed for Jokes He Never Made’ The Wire (Indore, 7 January 2021).
• Priya Ramani, ‘Stand-Up Comedy and the Changing Face of Indian Entertainment’ The Hindu (Delhi, 18 July 2022) .
• ANI, ‘FIR Filed against Kunal Kamra for Defamatory Remarks in Stand-Up Show’ Hindustan Times (Mumbai, 18 April 2025).
• Associated Press, ‘Vir Das’ “Two Indias” Monologue Sparks Controversy’ The Hindu (New Delhi, 18 November 2021).
• India Legal Bureau, ‘Legal Notices Sent to Vir Das after Kennedy Center Monologue’ India Legal (New Delhi, 20 November 2021).
• Times News Network, ‘Maharashtra Cyber Police Register Case against Samay Raina and Ranveer Allahbadia’ Times of India (Mumbai, 2 May 2025) .
• Express Web Desk, ‘Woman Dies by Suicide after Personal Photos Leak Online’ Indian Express (Delhi, 22 July 2019).
• Times News Network, ‘Honor Killings Fueled by Social Media Rumours’ Times of India (Lucknow, 2 September 2021).
• Scroll Staff, ‘Two Punjab Men Booked for Sedition after Sharing Old Protest Video’ Scroll.in (Punjab, 3 February 2021).
• Press Trust of India, ‘Honor Killing of 19-Year-Old Arju in Muzaffarnagar’ The Hindu (Muzaffarnagar, 28 May 2025).
• Shruti Singh, ‘Misogyny and the Law: India’s Missing Legal Framework’ The Hindu (New Delhi, 10 January 2024).
• Shruti Singh, ‘Why India Needs a Law against Misogynistic Digital Content’ The Hindu (New Delhi, 12 February 2024).
• Aparna Ravi, ‘The Deadly Link Between Social Media Shaming and Honor Crimes’ The Hindu (New Delhi, 14 March 2023)