Amidst protests from political parties over his recent stand up set “Naya Bharat” and the looming threat of prosecution over jokes cracked on Maharashtra Deputy CM, Kunal Kamra faces new challenges in the form of copyright strikes on YouTube over this standup special. In this two part post, Anjali explains the controversy and discusses whether Kamra’s “jokes” can be protected under fair dealing exception, in Part I. In Part II, she dives into the free speech implications of this case, exploring how copyright enforcement is increasingly being weaponised to silence criticism. Anjali Tripathi is a fourth-year law student at JGLS with an interest in IP rights, access to education, and the creative arts. Her previous post can be accessed here.
Fair Dealing or Foul Play? The Latest Kunal Kamra Controversy
By Anjali Tripathi
Have you ever started watching a comedy special on YouTube and thought to yourself multiple times during it, “Um…can he even say that?” That was my reaction to Kunal Kamra’s “Naya Bharat.” He’s no stranger to controversy – from roasting politicians and getting banned from several airlines to turning burning issues into fodder for comedy. He is not someone who has ever been afraid or . However, among his stunts garnering significant reactions from politicians and public alike, the one at hand seems to take the cake. It hasn’t just resulted in legal action against him and disproportionate violence in the Habitat Centre in Mumbai by the political parties he offended, but also copyright strikes.
This post explores the can of worms that Kamra’s special came with, where copyright law, free speech, and political satire collide. I’ll first break down copyright and fair dealing laws and then examine how legal threats and censorship are used to silence dissent. Finally, I’ll look at what this means for artists, creators, and comedians in India. Kamra might joke that comedians fear low ticket sales more than the government – but at this rate, copyright strikes and vandalised venues might top the list of the former’s worries.
Breaking Down the Controversy and IP Law’s Role In It
While most spent their time waiting on ChatGPT to finish generating their family’s Studio Ghibli-field photographs (read Miyazaki, the creator of Studio Ghibli’s thoughts on AI here), Kunal Kamra blessed YouTube with his comedy special “Naya Bharat” on 26th March 2025. This special had biting political commentary implying Eknath Shinde, Maharashtra’s Deputy Chief Minister, was a ‘turncoat. This caused a furore among the followers of the political leader leading to multiple cases filed against Kamra. Meanwhile, the internet, of course, did what it does best – make this controversy viral. While liberal circles and some politicians hailed Kamra and donated tons of money as “Super Thanks” to his special on YouTube so that he could afford a good law firm to defend him, Shiv Sena leaders fumed and statements were made by politicians about how freedom of speech is not a birthright. In the midst of this, as reported here, it seems like T-Series attacked Kamra with a copyright strike, which claimed his use of certain songs in the special infringed on their rights. It is to be kept in mind that it could be from the infamous YouTube’s Content ID system, which has often blindly sent copyright strikes to artists, in which case T-Series cannot be blamed for muffling free speech. (It has been discussed previously on the blog against blind application of this policy.) However, if this is after a complaint filed by T-Series then the question arises. whether the copyright claims are a genuine legal issue or just another way to silence him. One approach could perhaps be to question whether Kamra’s use of T-series songs can qualify as a cover version, thus giving T-series a valid cause of action. However, as we see below, right now, the discussion is centred around parody.
Kamra’s Defence of Parody
Copyright, at its core, is meant to protect creative work by giving exclusive rights to the creator to reproduce and distribute it. It acts like a shield preventing others from using our art without our permission.
However, like any shield, there are chinks in this armour, too – the exceptions. In India, there is something called fair dealing under Section 52 of the Copyright Act of 1957, which allows us to critique, review or report by making limited use of copyrighted material. Kamra’s main argument against T-Series’ copyright strike in his statement (added below) surrounds this.
. In relevant part, Section 52(1)(a) of the Act reads as follows:
“(1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely,—
(a) a fair dealing with any work, not being a computer programme, for the purposes of—
(i) private or personal use, including research;
(ii) criticism or review, whether of that work or of any other work;
(iii) the reporting of current events and current affairs, including the reporting of a lecture delivered in public.”
The key, thus, is to fit under one of these categories for our use of copyrighted material to be considered “fair.”
So, what is the case when it comes to parody?
Parody, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, is ‘an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect.’ When a comedian switches up the lyrics of a song to comment on the current ongoings of the political world, it’s not simply a tool for comedy; . This raises two critical legal questions: first, how parody is protected and second, how critique, as a broader category, is protected.
Parody, particularly, is protected under copyright law when it sufficiently transforms the original work, providing new meaning. As discussed by Spadika in this post about another group of comedians, the important point becomes one of the degree of similarity between the original and the derivative work to see if parody falls under fair use. In RG Anand v. M/s Deluxe Films (1978), it was held by the Supreme Court that if the theme is the same, but the subsequent work becomes “completely new”, it would not be copyright infringement. Courts, therefore, typically conduct an evaluation on the basis of the following as shadowed by the four-factor test of the US copyright law (Title 17 of US Code):
- Amount Used: how much of the original work is reproduced?
- Nature of the Copyrighted Work
- Purpose: whether the purpose is genuinely transformative such as critique or satire, or just a derivative copy?
- Relevant Market: does the reproduced work harm the market of the original work?
Criticism, however, is a broader category. It can include, but is not limited to, parody. While parodies require copying of the original work to differing lengths, critique may not include copying at all. Courts thus evaluate whether a work merely appropriates another’s expression or whether it meaningfully transforms it to engage in social or political critique. This raises an important question: does fair dealing in Indian copyright law only allow critique of the work or any other works, or can it extend to broader social or political commentary that uses the work as a tool?
Is Kamra’s Set a Parody?
Indian copyright law, unlike the US, does not explicitly recognise parody as a separate exception. However, this does not mean that it cannot be considered under fair dealing. A key question here is whether Kamra’s songs qualify as a parody in the first place. Parody typically involves commenting on or critiquing a work, but it can also extend to using a well-known work as a tool for broader social or political satire. Since there has been no substantial copying of the original songs, Kunal Kamra’s parody should arguably be allowed with its alteration of lyrics to mock or critique a political or social issue rather than merely replicating the work for entertainment If fair dealing were interpreted narrowly – only permitting critique of the work itself – then Kamra’s use of copyrighted material for social and political satire could be challenged. This raises a question on whether “any other work” under Section 52(1)(a)(ii) can be interpreted to mean only copyrighted work or anything else like state of affairs on which a political commentary has been made. There is precedent suggesting that Indian courts have taken a broader view of fair dealing.
We can look at the Civic Chandran case (1996), where the Kerala High Court held that a parody-like “counter drama” was not infringing copyright as the theme, ideology, and message behind the work were completely different from the original work. However, it is important to note that, in this case, the parody specifically targeted the protected work itself, directly engaging with and critiquing its content. This is different from cases where a well-known work is used not to comment on the original but as a vehicle for broader social or political critique. This distinction is crucial because it highlights that parody can have a wider scope – not only critiquing the source material but also using it to satirise larger societal issues. Understanding this difference is key to determining whether Kamra’s songs qualify as parodies under fair dealing. This suggests that fair dealing can encompass not just a direct critique of a work but also its use in a broader socio-political critique. Some aspects of the R.G. Anand case may apply here as well since the Court held that what matters is the substantiality of the quantity and quality copied, as highlighted in the Sulamangalam R. Jayalakshmi And Anr. vs Meta Musicals (Madras High Court, 16 June 2000) case.
Mr. Rahul Ajatshatru states that it might be difficult for Kamra to defend himself due to the lack of a separate exception for parodies under Indian law. While technically true, Mr. Ajay Kumar counters this by stressing the intent of Kamra’s special, which is criticism and commentary as permitted by Indian law. This argument can be strengthened by the Ashutosh Dubey v Netflix (DHC, 2020), where the Court recognised that it is well known that a comedian exaggerates to highlight a particular point, and therefore, statements made by them are not considered statements of truth and, rather, are taken with a pinch of salt. This precedent supports the idea that fair dealing should extend to broader socio-political critique rather than being limited to critiquing the original work itself. While the copyright angle raises important legal and artistic questions, the heart of the matter arguably lies deeper – in the use of legal tools and political power to suppress satire. That’s where we turn next.