Bollywood actor and producer Kamaal R Khan, commonly known as KRK, has approached the Bombay High Court seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against him in 2013. The FIR alleges that KRK made defamatory and casteist remarks against Tamil actor Dhanush in a video review of the film “Raanjhanaa.” KRK contends that the case lacks merit, citing a prolonged delay in the investigation and asserting his right to free speech.
Background of the FIR
In 2013, following the release of “Raanjhanaa,” KRK posted an 8.52-minute video review on YouTube. In this review, he allegedly made offensive comments about Dhanush, including caste-based remarks that were deemed highly objectionable. The Dr. Bheemrao Ambedkar Vichar Manch filed a complaint at the Seema Puri Police Station in Delhi, leading to the registration of an FIR under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act.
KRK’s Petition to Quash the FIR
In his petition to the Bombay High Court, KRK argues that he has been falsely implicated in the case. He points out that the FIR was filed by a third party, not by Dhanush or anyone directly associated with him, questioning the legal standing of the complainant. KRK also highlights a significant delay in the investigation, noting that even after several years, no chargesheet has been filed against him. He asserts that this prolonged delay violates his rights and amounts to an abuse of the legal process.
Free Speech and Legal Arguments
Central to KRK’s petition is the invocation of his fundamental right to free speech under the Indian Constitution. He contends that his comments, while critical, do not constitute a criminal offense and fall within the ambit of free expression. Furthermore, KRK challenges the applicability of the sections under which he has been booked, arguing that offenses related to “insulting the modesty of a woman” require a complaint from the aggrieved woman or someone closely related to her. In this case, the FIR was filed by an unrelated third party, which KRK claims renders the complaint legally untenable.
Legal Precedents and Implications
This case brings to light the broader issue of the misuse of legal provisions to stifle free speech, especially in the context of film criticism and commentary. Legal experts have previously cautioned against the overreach of laws like Section 66A of the IT Act, which was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 for being unconstitutional and infringing on free speech rights. KRK’s petition may set a precedent for how courts handle similar cases where the complainant is not the directly aggrieved party, and where there is a significant delay in the investigation process.
Current Status and Next Steps
KRK’s legal representative, Advocate Sana Raees Khan, has requested an expedited hearing of the petition. The Bombay High Court is expected to schedule a hearing date soon to deliberate on the merits of the petition and decide whether to quash the FIR. As the case progresses, it will be closely watched by legal professionals and the entertainment industry, given its potential implications for free speech and the legal responsibilities of film critics and commentators.
In the interim, KRK has sought a stay on all legal proceedings related to the FIR until the High Court reaches a decision. This move aims to prevent any further legal action that could affect his personal and professional life during the pendency of the petition.
The outcome of this case could have significant ramifications for the balance between free speech and legal accountability in India, particularly concerning content shared on digital platforms.
