Introduction
In an era where democracy is increasingly tested, India’s judicial system appears to be focusing on all the wrong battles. The recent actions taken against comedians like Tanmay Bhat, Ashish Chanchlani, Samay Raina, and others for their so-called “vulgar” comedy raise unsettling questions about the priorities of our courts. Where is our judiciary headed when humorists are being prosecuted while perpetrators of heinous crimes roam freely?
The Disproportionate Targeting of Comedians
Comedy has long been a form of resistance, a mirror to society’s flaws, and a vehicle for challenging authority. From Charlie Chaplin satirizing fascism to George Carlin critiquing political hypocrisy, comedians have historically played a pivotal role in questioning power structures. Yet, in India, the act of making people laugh is becoming a criminal offense.
The Allahabad High Court, notorious for controversial rulings in recent times, has set an unsettling precedent. By taking action against comedians for making jokes deemed inappropriate, the judiciary has signaled a dangerous shift towards moral policing. This crackdown is particularly disturbing given the lack of equivalent urgency in addressing real and pressing crimes. What does it say about our nation when comedians are dragged to court for using crude humor while rapists, scamsters, and reckless drivers walk free?
This selective persecution does not just affect comedians—it strikes at the heart of free expression. If stand-up artists must self-censor to avoid legal action, what does that mean for journalists, authors, or filmmakers? The erosion of creative freedom is the first step towards authoritarianism, where the state decides what can and cannot be said, heard, or laughed at.
Justice for Whom?
A simple glance at recent news will show the glaring contradiction in our judicial priorities. Teenagers from powerful families continue to kill innocents in reckless car crashes and escape with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Sexual violence remains rampant, with survivors struggling for justice as their cases languish in courts for years. Corrupt politicians and businessmen steal from the public and yet manage to evade consequences, their cases endlessly postponed or mysteriously dismissed.
Meanwhile, our judicial system is swift and severe when it comes to prosecuting stand-up comedians. Is this what justice looks like in today’s India? If courts are meant to uphold the principles of fairness and constitutional rights, why is their attention disproportionately focused on suppressing free speech instead of protecting the vulnerable?
This growing imbalance in legal scrutiny creates an environment where crime flourishes unchecked while creativity and criticism are shackled. When the justice system begins to act as an instrument of oppression rather than protection, the very fabric of democracy is at risk of unraveling.
The Hypocrisy of Selective Outrage
What is considered “vulgar” or “offensive” in a democracy is subjective and should never be determined by the state or judiciary. Ironically, the same institutions that claim to be guardians of public decency have done little to prevent the explicit misogyny, communal hatred, and incendiary rhetoric spewed by some politicians and religious figures. Why do comedians face harsher scrutiny than those who actively incite violence and social discord?
The judiciary’s job is not to impose moral standards but to uphold the Constitution. Free speech, even when uncomfortable, is a fundamental right. Satire and comedy often make people uncomfortable—that is their very nature. If the courts begin to define what is permissible humor, we are heading down a dangerous path where artistic expression is muzzled, and citizens live in fear of retribution for merely speaking their minds.
Moreover, selective outrage not only exposes judicial hypocrisy but also distracts from far more pressing issues. As the courts invest time in scrutinizing comedy acts, pressing legal battles involving marginalized communities, land rights violations, and political corruption receive far less attention. Prioritizing frivolous cases over genuine human rights violations is nothing short of an abdication of judicial responsibility.
The “Pulling of Pants” Judgment: A Disturbing Legal Precedent
In yet another alarming display of judicial inconsistency, a recent ruling on sexual harassment has sparked outrage. The court held that forcibly pulling a woman’s pants and groping her did not amount to sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, citing the lack of direct skin-to-skin contact.
This appalling verdict raises serious concerns about the understanding of consent, bodily autonomy, and the very definition of sexual violence in our legal system. It is a stark contrast to the swift action taken against comedians for making jokes deemed “vulgar.” How can our judiciary downplay an act of physical violation while aggressively prosecuting artists for their words? The judgment not only trivializes the trauma of survivors but also emboldens perpetrators, signaling that technical loopholes matter more than justice itself. If our courts cannot recognize and condemn the gravity of such offenses, what hope is left for victims seeking justice?
The Distorted Priorities of Law Enforcement
If only our law enforcement agencies and courts showed the same zeal in addressing crimes against women, caste-based violence, corruption, and cronyism. Instead, what we witness is a grotesque miscarriage of justice: a young comedian can be arrested overnight for making a joke, but a high-profile rape case can drag on for years, with the accused often leveraging wealth and influence to evade punishment.
The consequences of such selective enforcement are dire. It erodes public trust in the legal system and normalizes the suppression of voices that challenge authority. It sends a clear message: if you have power, you are above the law; if you are an artist or a dissenter, you will be crushed.
Beyond the immediate impact, this distortion of legal priorities also emboldens those who seek to use the judiciary as a tool for silencing opposition. The law is meant to be an instrument of justice, not a weapon wielded by those in power to silence dissenters. When those tasked with upholding justice become complicit in its perversion, the entire system teeters on the edge of irrelevance.
Where Do We Go from Here?
The Indian judiciary must introspect before it is too late. A legal system that prioritizes punishing comedians over criminals is one that has lost its way. The courts should be focusing on ensuring speedy justice for victims of real crimes rather than acting as cultural censors.
Freedom of speech is not just about the right to agree—it is about the right to offend. The role of comedy is to challenge the status quo, to push boundaries, and to make people think. If our courts cannot tolerate humor, then democracy itself is in danger.
It is time for the judiciary to refocus its energies on what truly matters: upholding justice, defending constitutional rights, and ensuring that those who commit real crimes face the consequences of their actions. Anything less is a betrayal of the very ideals that our legal system is meant to protect.
To restore faith in the justice system, the courts must take decisive action against real offenders, hold those in power accountable, and ensure that the law serves the people rather than oppresses them. Otherwise, the slow and silent death of free speech will not just kill comedy—it will dismantle democracy itself.
-IFFAT AUROOJ
MUST READ: GENDER POLICIES AND IMPLICATIONS OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY UNDER TRUMP’S PRESIDENCY
META DESCRIPTION: India’s judiciary is cracking down on comedians while real criminals walk free. This article examines the misplaced priorities of the legal system, highlighting selective prosecution, judicial hypocrisy, and the erosion of free speech in a democracy under threat
