New Delhi: Comedian Kunal Kamra has denied reports carrying the claim from a senior Maharashtra legislative council official that he had sought an adjournment of a February 5 privilege committee hearing over what he said in a comedy show last year.Chairman of Legislative Council’s Privilege Committee Prasad Lad had on been quoted by Indian Express on February 4 as having said that Kamra apparently told the committee that he would not be able to come to Mumbai for the first mandatory hearing. “Kunal Kamra has communicated his inability to appear today. He has now been given February 17 to depose before the committee,” Lad was quoted as having said.Kamra had been in the line of fire over his stand-up show in March 2025, in which he touched upon layers of political corruption. Among those he referred to, without naming, was the Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde. Shinde’s supporters vandalised the venue, a first information reports followed, and police went to the extent of serving notices to audience members.The Bombay high court eventually granted Kamra relief.Bharatiya Janata Party MLC Pravin Darekar had meanwhile moved a a breach-of-privilege motion in the Maharashtra Legislative Council, claiming that the remarks insulted a popular leader and amounted to a breach of the House’s privilege.Today, Kamra posted on social media, noting that he had travelled to Mumbai for the express purpose of attending the hearing, despite the short notice.“As has been widely reported, the Maharashtra Legislature has instituted breach of privilege proceedings against me. In this regard, I note that the media has published reports that I had sought an adjournment from the Privileges Committee of the Maharashtra Legislative Council, before whom I have been asked to depose on 5th February 2026. These reports are incorrect, and I am compelled to issue this clarification,” Kamra noted.He wrote a five-point clarification which is being quoted below:“1. I was asked to appear before the Privileges Committee on 5th February 2026. The summons was issued to me by a letter dated 23 January 2026 that was only served to me on 29th January 2026.“2. Despite the short notice, I agreed to appear and sent an email on 30th January 2026 to the Committee, confirming that I would attend the hearing with my lawyer.“3. I flew to Mumbai on Wednesday for the purpose of the hearing.“4. On Wednesday evening, at around 6 PM, I recieved (sic) a call from an officer at the Vidhan Sabha, stating that the hearing was to be adjourned. This was followed by a letter confirming the adjournment. The letter from the Committee makes it clear that the adjournment was not at my request.“5. I have not been informed as to when the next date would be (though the media reports suggest it is to be on 17th February 2026).“I continue to remain willing to co-operate in the proceedings,” Kamra noted, adding that he wishes to make it clear that he did not seek an adjournment.He also highlighted how details of a purportedly confidential notice were available to the media.“I must also mention that all communication addressed by the Committee to me has stated that the proceedings are ‘confidential’. Despite this, the notices to me appear to have been leaked to the media, and the Chairman of the Committee appears to be giving statements to the media about the developments in the proceedings. I have refrained from commenting on the proceedings thus far, but have been constrained to do so on account of the incorrect reporting as to what has transpired,” he wrote.He also added in a “side note,” – “If this the approach they take to work that they have scheduled, one can speculate what their attitude would be to their legislative duties.”