Critics of the opposition's protest, including the seers who filed the complaint, argue that the skit crossed a line by using religious attire and symbols to ridicule deeply held beliefs. By having an MP dress in saffron robes—a color and attire traditionally associated with Hindu saints—to depict a thief, the performers were seen as deliberately insulting the sanctity of the faith. For many, this was not a critique of government policy, but a direct affront to the dignity of Sanatan Dharma and the community of seers.
Those who support the legal action against the MPs maintain that freedom of expression does not grant a license to mock the religious sentiments of millions. They argue that the choice of the Parliament complex to stage such a performance was particularly provocative and disrespectful to the cultural traditions of the country. The complainants emphasize that the act caused genuine pain to the faithful and that such behavior from elected representatives sets a dangerous precedent for public discourse.
From this viewpoint, the legal consequences are a necessary step to ensure that public figures are held accountable for their actions. The use of the law is seen as a way to protect social harmony and prevent the normalization of religious mockery in political life. Critics argue that if political leaders are allowed to use religious symbols as props for their theater, it will inevitably lead to further polarization and the erosion of respect for the diverse cultural and religious fabric of India.