Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 66 (1.20 seconds)
Kunal Kamra vs Union Of India on 31 January, 2024 cites

Signature Not Verified Digitally ... vs Mr. Puneet Saini, Adv. For Petitioner In ... on 31 August, 2022

13. Kunal Kamra is the lone individual in this group of case. He is by profession a stand-up 'comedian', but that word is not to be read in any disparaging sense. It is what he does. He makes jokes abouts Page 12 of 148 31st January 2024 Kunal Kamra v Union of India & Connected Matters -- per GS Patel J oswpl-9792-2023++J-F-GSPatelJ.pdf things and people, highlights and parodies the absurdities in daily life. This is known as observational comedy. His entire oeuvre is rooted in some facet or the other of life, politics, art and more. Of course there is parody and exaggeration -- that is the whole point, after all -- and he does not pretend to be a replicator, narrator or a conveyor of unvarnished 'truth' or 'facts'. In more colloquial terms, he 'puts his spin' on things. Of him, more than others, there may well be substance to the adage in joco veritas: in jest, there is truth. Conceptually, this is not very different from the print cartoons we see in our daily press each day. How is he affected by this amendment? He says that essential to his work (it is the only thing he does) and is therefore not only a matter of free speech but also one of his fundamental right to carry on his chosen profession.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 881 - V Bakhru - Full Document

The Secretary, Ministry Of Information ... vs Cricket Association Of Bengal & Anr on 9 February, 1995

156. Answering this, I understood Mr Mehta to say that the Supreme Court decision in Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India & Ors v Cricket Association of Bengal & Ors, 65 accepted that any speech involving the use of 'airwaves' could be regulated 'in the public interest'. But in that very decision, the Supreme Court held that the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) cannot be restricted except as permitted by Article 19(2). The CAB decision was in the context of a perceived need to regulate not free speech but the issue of licenses to broadcaster. It did not deal with content. The impugned Rule is concerned only with content.
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 188 - P B Sawant - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next