What Might Appear To Be Obscene & Indecent To One May Not Be So To A Majority Of Citizenry In Contemporary Times: Andhra Pradesh HC Dismisses PIL Against Bigg Boss
The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed PILs against Bigg Boss after observing that what might appear to be obscene and indecent to the petitioner may not be so to a majority of citizenry in contemporary times.
The Petitioner sought action against the reality show Telugu Bigg Boss for alleged violations of public decency and morality. The Court held that the Petitioner had not utilised the statutory remedies provided under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, and the associated Rules, 1994, before approaching the Court.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati stated “What might appear to be obscene and indecent to the petitioner may not be so to a majority of citizenry in contemporary times.”
Advocate Gundala Siva Prasada Reddy appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Advocates O. Manoher Reddy and C. Raghu represented the Respondents.
The Petitioner filed PILs in relation to different seasons of Bigg Boss. The first PIL concerned Bigg Boss 3 in 2019, while the second was filed during the 2022 season. It was contended that the program’s content violated public morality and was unsuitable for young viewers. They sought a directive for stopping its telecast unless certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, along with Star India Private Limited (Maa TV), opposed the PILs, arguing that the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, and Rules provide sufficient safeguards against inappropriate content. They also pointed out that the Act does not require pre-censorship of television programs.
The High Court referred to the Programme Code under Rule 6 of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, which prohibits the telecast of content that offends good taste, decency, or morality.
The Bench observed that the 2021 amendment to the Rules had introduced a three-tier grievance redressal system. Complaints regarding program content must first be addressed to the broadcaster. If unresolved, they can be escalated to self-regulatory bodies and finally to the Central Government through the Inter-Departmental Committee.
The Court also referred to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (1965), wherein the Apex Court emphasised that “the test of obscenity must square with the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under our constitution. This invites the Court to reach a decision on a constitutional issue of a most far-reaching character and it must be beware that it cannot lean too far away from the guaranteed freedom.”
Consequently, the Court held, “In our opinion, the petitioner ought to have taken resort to the mechanism which is prescribed under the Rules of 1995 to air his grievance before the competent authorities, which the petitioner has certainly not done. 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.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: K. Jagadishwara Reddy v. Union Of India & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Gundala Siva Prasada Reddy
Respondents: Senior Advocates O. Manoher Reddy and C. Raghu; Advocate Venna Hemanth Kumar
