The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently rejected two Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions that sought to challenge the airing of the reality television show Bigg Boss Telugu.
The petitioners argued that the show promotes obscenity and vulgarity, but the Court dismissed this claim.
The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, stated that what may seem obscene or indecent to the petitioners may not be perceived the same way by the majority of citizens in contemporary society.
The Court also pointed out that the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, along with the Rules framed under it, provides a detailed mechanism for addressing complaints related to obscenity, vulgarity, and violence.
However, the Court observed that the petitioners had not utilized the available remedies. It stated that they should have resorted to the mechanism outlined under the Rules to raise their grievance with the competent authorities.
"While the petitioner may feel strongly about content which is being aired by private respondent ... as containing scenes which are abhorrent or obscene to decency and morality and thus being in violation of the Programme Code, yet whether it is obscene and indecent has to be tested by the three-tier mechanism which has been prescribed under the Act of 1995 and the Rules of 1994," it added.
The PILs claimed that Bigg Boss Telugu 6, hosted by renowned actor Nagarjuna, promotes obscenity, vulgarity, and abusive behavior, which negatively impacts children and youth. The petitioners further argued that such content violates public decency and morality, seeking a direction to prevent the show from being aired without a censor certificate. However, the Court ruled that the law does not mandate pre-censorship of programs broadcast on private TV channels.
"By enclosing a few photographs and by claiming that the same were obscene, it would not per se suffice to prevent the private respondents from screening their show. The petitioner can, if so advised, avail the statutory remedies," it said.
Accordingly, both the petitions were dismissed.
"We cannot convince ourselves to grant relief to the petitioner as was prayed for. The present writ petition (PILs) are found to be without any merit and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs," the Court ordered.
Advocate Gundala Siva Prasada Reddy appeared for the petitioner.
Central Government Counsel Venna Hemanth Kumar represented the Union of India.
Senior Advocates O Manoher Reddy and C Raghu appeared for other respondents.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy