Introduction
In the recent past, we have witnessed a lot of satirical comments being made on actors, politicians, individuals, society, etc. A lot of such comments tend to become the talk of the town while many undergo a trial. Every other day in the print media, we witness several cartoon caricatures made on politicians, known personalities through which they are funnily ridiculed. Sometimes the copyright holder files suit against the comedians, writers claiming that the parody or satirical work which they portray amounts to copyright infringement. Often people confuse themselves between parody and satire, however, both possess different meaning and existence.
What is Satirical Comedy?
Satire refers to the use of comic elements to bring out or expose the evil realities of the society or an individual of which the citizens are unaware like corruption, dowry, etc. The main purpose of satirical comedy is not laughter but to uncover the social evils prevailing in our society.
Difference Between Satire And Parody
Parody refers to the close imitation of the author’s style or works, humorously or comically in the form of literary or musical work. Parodies are made of original work in which the characters are imitated and ridiculed, whereas satire involves humor but, to bring out the evils, foolishness, and corruption of the society. Satire may or may not use original work. The original work used is just the means, not the end product.
“Parody needs to mimic an original to make its point, and so has some claim to use the creation of its victim’s (or collective victims’), whereas satire can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing”.
The US Supreme Court in the case of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music
Protection of Satire
Satire is protected under freedom of speech and expression enriched under Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution, keeping in mind the reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Satire is not protected under the doctrine of fair use because to obtain protection under fair use there must be some creative work done while copying the original work and as satire is just a comment or criticism made against an individual or society and does not involve any creative work, it is not protected under the concept of fair use.
What is Defamation?
According to Section 499 of IPC (Indian Penal Code) defamation refers “to intentionally harming the reputation of a person or having reasons to believe”. If a person defames an individual then he/she has to undergo simple imprisonment which may extend to 2 years or fine or both under Section 500 of IPC. To charge someone against defamation, it must qualify the following essential conditions:
- False statement against an individual.
- Publication or communication of such a statement to the third party.
- Because of such communication, the damage is caused to the person like a lower’s reputation in the eyes of the third party.
Does Satirical Comedy Amount to Defamation?
In the recent past, a lot of popular stand-up comedians have faced a case of defamation. It is a known fact that stand-up comedians highlight a particular point, exaggerate the same to an extent that it becomes a satire and a comedy. In India, there are no proper references and laws which specifically talk about whether Satirical comedy amounts to defamation or not. It depends from case to case and how judges interpret it. One can use satirical comedy to unfold the evil truth of the society, keeping in mind the reasonable restrictions imposed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
For a very long time, it is been argued that Satirical comedy must be protected under Fair use just like Parody so that evils of the society can easily be uncovered and truth can be unfolded.
Satirical comedy can amount to defamation only when it refers to an individual, not the society or a group.
One such recent case against a stand-up comedian Vir Das became the talk of the town where it was alleged that the comedian defamed the legal fraternity in one of his episodes of the series titled HASMUKH. In the case of Ashutosh Dubey v. Netflix Inc & Ors, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant Vir Das defamed lawyers in one of his episodes that aired on Netflix and contended that it was derogatory and lowered the reputation of lawyers in the eyes of people. In the end, the High Court stated the case of Eastwood v. Holmes where it was alleged that lawyers as a class are not capable of being defamed. The same contention was made in the case of Shah Rukh Khan vs. State of Rajasthan where it was stated that to maintain an action for defamation, it should be against a definite and identifiable group.
Hence, the judgment was passed in favor of the defendant and finally “HASMUKH LAUGHED AGAIN”
In my opinion, it was not defamation because:
- Defamation is against a person, not a group or an association, and here the comedian did not refer to an individual.
- The series was based on the theme of satirical comedy where the comedian exaggerated different facts, scenarios, issues to portray evils and ills of the community and the audience does not view such comments/jokes of a stand-up comedian as statements of truth but understands that it is an exaggeration employed for exposing certain ills.
- According to Article 19(1)(a), every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression, they have the freedom to express their views and opinion.
- Satire is a form of art. It uses techniques like an exaggeration, wit or irony to ridicule an individual or society and thus does not amount to defamation.
