Credit: Special Arrangement
Earlier this week, comedian Kunal Kamra apologised to his fans after Mumbai police allegedly issued notices to attendees of his recent stand-up show, which is currently at the centre of a controversy.
The show, titled ‘Naya Bharat’, has sparked controversy over alleged remarks on Maharashtra’s deputy chief minister Eknath Shinde. While the Mumbai police has since clarified that they did not issue notices to members of the audience, the news created a buzz as netizens debated whether such action was legally required. Metrolife asked legal and data rights experts to explain what this means in a larger context.
Earlier this week, multiple news organisations reported that notices were issued to audience members under Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which permits police to summon witnesses for questioning. It was also reported that a Mumbai-based banker, who attended Kamra’s show in Mumbai, was reportedly summoned by the police, forcing him to cut short his vacation to record his statement as a witness.
By definition, a witness is needed solely to assist in establishing facts, and no allegations or charges are made against them, shares K M Sai Apabharana, advocate. “An investigating officer may have a variety of reasons to summon a witness. As each investigation is different, it is difficult to draw general conclusions in regards to the role of witnesses and when they can be summoned. There is no reason for witnesses to feel concerned as their participation is intended to enable a fair investigation,” she explains.
While the police are within their rights to summon attendees of the show, it is not mandatory, says Safiya B, advocate. “Since a video recording of the event is readily available, summoning the audience is not necessary. But the police are well within their rights to summon a few audience members as witnesses. However, the severity of this case or the lack of it, does not call for this step to be taken,” she adds.
Intimidation tactic
Although, summoning audience members as witnesses might seem like a small act, it sends out a strong message, says Thejesh G N, data activist. “Going forward, people will think twice before booking tickets for a similar comedy show. Tomorrow, if a newspaper publishes something that isn’t in favour of certain individuals in power, will the police then go after its subscribers? This is an attempt to attack the people who financially support an individual or organisation. We saw something similar when Razorpay was asked to share details of people who made donations to Alt News a few years back,” he tells Metrolife.
Technological inconvenience
If police officials did send notices to multiple audience members, it is important to check how they got access to the data, says Thejesh. “Did they get it directly from the ticket provider or the venue management or was it through a court order?” he asks. Digitisation at every step has made personal data easily accessible, he believes.
“Even in a situation where attendees paid in cash, it is possible to trace them as they would’ve provided their name and number at the venue. However, tracing a digital footprint is faster and provides ease of access,” shares Pranav M Bidare, researcher, Centre for Internet and Society. “Technology is not at fault here, it is about how organisations are using it. Removing digitisation and stopping UPI usage won’t fix any problem. When the list of conveniences increases, the list of potential problems also increases. We need better technological literacy to deal with such situations,” he adds.