Beyond The Punchline: Portrayal Of Law In Comedy

Comedy as a tool:

Comedy media permeates the mindset and ideologies of its viewers much more than other forms of media. This is primarily due to the fact that viewers tend to have their guard down while consuming such media and are less likely to scrutinise the information being propagated. Humour-centric media is used as a form of stress relief and is often the purest form of entertainment, leading to viewers perceiving information at face value rather than paying heed to its undertones. This is imperative as comedy is often exploited to promote and propagate political agendas and ideologies to its vulnerable viewers. This impact can lead to the general populace being influenced to believe their political ideology to be purely objective, while it is predominantly subjective due to the content they consume. The evolution of cartoons and caricatures to the now popular “meme culture” has seen the rise of using humour as a tool to sway the masses. The use of social media platforms to post and share memes is also often used to propagate political sentiments. However, the true dangers of the use of comedy in this manner lie in the nature of such content. Humorous sketches and memes, often perceived by viewers to be neutral on the surface, carry the potential of having discrete agendas which often infiltrate the viewer’s outlook. This means that an educated and well-informed audience proves futile to tactical marketing and content creation.

The portrayal of law in comedy shows and media can have unintended consequences on how jurors perceive legal proceedings and those involved in them. Humour can be a powerful tool to engage audiences, but it also has the potential to shape juror bias and prejudice, impacting the fairness of trials and the administration of justice. Influential comedians and popular comedic shows with a large audience base can sway the masses with their depiction of the legal scenario (6).This phenomenon, however, can be seen as two faces of the same coin.

One notable manner in which comedy can exert an influence on juror bias is by perpetuating stereotypes. Comedy often relies on the usage of stereotypes to generate humour. In the context of the legal system, this can result in the portrayal of legal professionals, jurors, defendants, and other participants in trials using exaggerated and familiar characterisations. These caricatures can create preconceived notions about the individuals involved in a case, leading jurors to make judgments based on stereotypes rather than objective evidence (7). Jurors who harbour negative impressions of defence attorneys may be more inclined to doubt their arguments or question their credibility, even in cases where the attorney is presenting a valid and well-founded defence. This bias can tip the scales of justice, compromising the principle
of a fair and impartial trial.

Having said that, the portrayal of the law can have a widespread positive influence on the legal scenario. This notion is echoed by Peter Goodrich in his “Excavation of Law and Comedy” The central idea put forth in his work is that when comedy exhibits genuine wit, it can have a productive influence on judgment (8). At its peak, comedy disrupts established norms and challenges repetitive thoughts, encouraging innovative perspectives. In its most effective form, comedy guides decision-making towards a more light-hearted and realistic approach, embracing truth, even if conveyed through fictional or humorous elements (9). While humour has its place in entertainment, it is crucial to strike a balance that avoids perpetuating harmful notions that could have far-reaching consequences for the administration of justice.

Humour as a catalyst

Over the years, the country has seen multiple voices raised against the legal system and its questionable actions. The government has long used its authoritarian power to silence such agents, which begs the question of whether, in a democratic country such as India, the Right to Freedom of speech is genuinely secured for its citizens (10). As the popularity of YouTube and other content creation platforms increased, it also saw the rise of comedy channels which used satire and humour to broadcast their commentary about relevant social and legal issues. By infusing comedy with legal subject matter, the content-creators found innovative ways to break down complex legal concepts, raise awareness, and encourage public interest in matters of law. The EIC Outrage series, created by the East India Comedy group, actively voiced their opinions on controversial issues such as Section 377, the beef ban and their advocacy for LGBTQ+ rights through their sketches and skits (11).Television shows such as “Office Office” also played a substantial role in minimising the alienation that the general public feels from the judicial system by criticising and showcasing the often-frustrating Indian bureaucracy (12). Another major contributor to the use of comedy and wit as a form of social commentary is the brand of Amul. In the realm of social commentary, Amul stands as an intriguing case study, demonstrating how humour can be harnessed to address critical legal and societal issues. Amul’s utilisation of comedic representation as a medium for discussing legal and social matters exemplifies its role in fostering relatability and informed citizenship, thus shedding light on the broader discourse surrounding the portrayal of law.

In addition to being crucial for an informed populace, comedy shows also act as a catalyst for significant social change. The use of derogatory slurs has evolved into the marginalised communities often reclaiming the words as a form of empowerment (13). Comedians, especially ones from marginalised communities, play an imperative role in the transformation of slurs used against their community. The goal of stigmatised individuals using derogatory terminology is frequently to “take the power back” and change offensive language into neutral ones. Reclaiming is still a risky process, as it may only be viewed as non-offensive and empowering in specific circumstances. Therefore, the question of when and by whom such pejorative labels are employed in a recovered form is still up for debate, and this thinline, if traversed carefully by comedians, can be the social change that is required. Multiple instances of the same can be seen in movements such as Black Lives Matter, the LGBTQ+
rights movement and the MeToo movement, where slurs used against the minorities were reclaimed.

India, being a democracy championing the importance of ideals such as freedom of speech, has witnessed several encounters between the law and comedians. The charges range from defamation to hurting religious sentiments under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, a non-bailable offence (14). However, comedians also tend to use minorities as their muse; whether it be cultural, linguistic or religious minorities, under the guise of humour, and they are often wielded for propagating stereotypes prevalent in society. Stereotypes, when perpetuated through comedy, have the potential to fuel prejudices, division, and discord within the community. It becomes crucial for comedians to exercise caution in their artistic endeavours, mindful of the impact their words and actions may have on fostering social harmony. Nevertheless, the paradoxical plight of comedians facing charges casts a shadow over fundamental rights, raising concerns about the intricacies of liberty and censorship. While the country,s legal system seeks to protect freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a), it also encompasses laws against hurting religious sentiments, inciting communal disharmony, and defaming individuals or public figures (15). The boundary between the two still proves a tightrope to be traversed by comedians all over the country to this day.