Comedian Daniel Fernandes defends satire after legal notice over Kashmir joke

Stand-up comedian Daniel Fernandes has received a legal notice from two Supreme Court lawyers asking him to take down his recent YouTube video on the Kashmir terror attack and another X post

The notice, sent by Advocates Makarand D Adkar and Amita Sachdeva, accuses Fernandes of offending the sentiments of countless Indians, trivialising the the Pahalgam terror attack and hurting public sentiment.

The advocates further said Fernandes' statements mock sacred cultural and religious values, and stereotype the nation. They highlighted the bits they found offensive and gave him time until June 3 to take the video down else face legal action.

Also Read: Why can't Indian politicians take a joke against themselves?

Fernandes defends satire

Responding with calm clarity, Fernandes thanked the lawyers for the civil tone of their notice — a rare gesture, he said, in India’s current climate of discourse.

He highlighted the growing trend of stifling voices, whether it's the treatment of students in America who speak up for Palestine, or the vandalizing of comedy clubs in India and now notices like these, for simply speaking truth to power should worry us all.

He defended his stand stating that content in question is satire, a constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), a long-recognised and protected form of commentary in democratic societies.

Also Read: SC defends freedom of speech: ‘films, poetry, satire make life meaningful’

Comedy under siege

He emphasised that his jokes are meant to provoke thought, not disrespect. He stated that he enjoys talking about stuff that makes us uncomfortable and maybe offer some perspective.

He stressed that while comedy can unite people, it also serves as a tool for social commentary, one that is intended to entertain while provoking thought.

He reiterated that his performances happen under a controlled environment of a comedy club, with an explicit understanding that everything being said is a joke and is not meant to be taken literally.

"Stand-up comedy often uses exaggeration and hyperbole as comedic devices, and any examination of such material should not be denied the context within which these words are spoken," Fernandes said.

Also Read: Kunal Kamra: The stand-up comedian, satirist, and the man who won’t shut up

Bit-by-bit rebuttals

Each objection raised by the lawyers was addressed in Fernandes’ detailed response. Fernandes maintained that his intent was never to offend victims, but to critique power, blind obedience, and the erosion of dialogue.

He argued his remarks were a broader cultural observation rather than a targeted insult to Indian values or parenthood.

1. Home Minister absence remark

Statement: "Where was the home minister when all of this was happening? At home! Location is mentioned in the portfolio. Besides not knowing how a democracy works, do you also not know how to read?"

Objection: This insults the Union Home Minister and citizens seeking accountability, undermining trust in governance during a sensitive postattack period.

Response: Asking for accountability from elected officials is a classic form of political satire. The remark is aimed at institutional accountability, and not any religion or community. In a democracy, holding power to account through humour is a protected expression..

2. Exporting hate

Statement: "India has too much hate already. Don't you agree we have a surplus of hate? India has so much hate right now we can export it to countries like Norway and Finland."

Objection: This stereotypes India as hate-filled, maligning its global image and offending citizens who value unity and diversity, especially after the Pahalgam tragedy.

Response: This joke is an exaggeration to highlight growing intolerance, not a literal indictment of all Indians. Satire uses overstatement to shine a light on uncomfortable truths. It's a commentary on the toxicity of online and offline discourse, not on India's values.

3. 'Insects' and online abuse

Statement: "The foreign secretary of India and his family were attacked because India declared a ceasefire. These insects, they've been following the genocide in Palestine, okay, and they thought, you know, we should have some of that over here in the same time zone."

Objection: Calling citizens "insects" and implying they desire violence insults India's commitment to peace, risking communal discord and offending advocates of non-violence.

Response: "Insects" is clearly metaphorical, referencing online trolls who glorify violence. This particular bit criticises the social media culture that fetishizes conflict and glorifies threats of violence and rape, and not any religious or ethnic group. It reinforces India's commitment to peace, not the opposite.

4. Nuclear solution to Kashmir issue

Statement: "Let's go nuclear, right. Let's turn both our countries into a toxic wasteland. We can create new communities in this post- apocalyptic era where there will be no Hindus there will be no Muslims; there will only be mutants, right, and we can finally get along, right, and this is how you solve the Kashmir issue."

Objection: This trivializes the Kashmir conflict and the Pahalgam attack, offending religious communities and disrespecting the 26 victims.

Response: This is absurdist satire where I have used dystopian exaggeration to show the futility of warmongering. The idea that only mutants would survive a nuclear war is a critique of escalation, not a joke at the expense of victims.

5. Family members getting shot

Statement: "Who doesn't have one or two family members they wouldn't like to see shot through the head?"

Objection: This insensitive joke trivializes the Pahalgam attack's 26 deaths, offending family values and causing emotional harm to those affected by the tragedy.

Response: This punchline weighs the choice of losing a family member to an attack versus an all-out war as a response which will result in more deaths. Under no circumstance is the punchline targeted at victims of the Pahalgam attack.

This is dark humour, and is often used to process grief, helplessness, and fear. It's a coping mechanism, and not mockery. Comedians often explore the uncomfortable space between tragedy and comedy to help audiences deal with trauma.

6. Blaming Indian parenting

Statement: "Because we grow up f***ing in this country, especially (where) it's a very Indian thing that parents are God. I think that's where it all goes wrong for a society where you teach children not to ask questions. So we got drilled with that whole thing that if there is an authority figure in the room, you must remain silent. That's the connection we all have now with authority figures in this f***ing country."

Objection: The use of profanities like "f***ing country" and blaming Indian parents for societal issues is deeply offensive, even if said in jest. It disrespects sacred values. Such statements, especially during a time of national mourning post-Pahalgam attack, trivialise serious issues, insult parental roles, and risk fuelling generational conflict. Humor must not come at the cost of culture, dignity, or unity.

Response: This bit has nothing to do with the Pahalgam attack, and was posted before it happened. This joke criticizes blind obedience to authority, not parenting itself. The use of profanity reflects emotional honesty and frustration with systems that suppress dissent. It's social commentary, not a condemnation of Indian culture or anybody's parents in particular.

Also Read: ‘Implead…then we’ll see’: SC ‘disturbed’ by Samay Raina’s jokes

Defending artistic freedom

Fernandes said the statements cited in the notice falls within the scope of satire and social commentary. He underscored that his intent was never to incite hatred or disrespect victims but to provoke thought, critique systems of power, and highlight societal contradictions, which is a legitimate and constitutionally protected form of expression.

Fernandes further argued that if discourse rooted in the language of violence has been allowed to operate freely in recent times, it is only fair that language rooted in laughter be allowed to coexist peacefully.

"While I might wholeheartedly welcome the attention to my work any further escalation of this matter might attract, I think we can all agree that there are far more serious issues that require our judiciary's attention," he said.

He declined the advocates' request to delete the clips as he believes that art, no matter how provocative, should be allowed to exist and we should call upon each other to display maturity and discretion with our personal choices regarding viewing said art.