The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently dismissed two Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions challenging the airing of the reality television show Bigg Boss Telugu [K Jagadishwara Reddy v Union of India and Others], citing a lack of merit in the petitioners’ claims.
The petitioners had alleged that the show promotes obscenity, vulgarity, and abusive behaviour, which they argued hurt children and youth. They further contended that the content violated public decency and morality, requesting that the show be prohibited from airing without a censor certificate. However, the Court dismissed these arguments, emphasizing that what the petitioners found obscene may not be viewed the same way by the general public in contemporary society.
The Division Bench, consisting of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, noted that the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, along with its Rules, establishes a robust framework for addressing complaints related to obscenity, vulgarity, and violence on television. The Court pointed out that the petitioners had failed to utilize the statutory mechanisms provided under the Act and Rules, which would have allowed them to lodge their complaints with the competent authorities.
The Court stated, “While the petitioner may feel strongly about content aired by the private respondent… as containing scenes which are abhorrent or obscene to decency and morality and thus violating the Programme Code, yet whether it is obscene and indecent has to be tested by the three-tier mechanism prescribed under the Act of 1995 and the Rules of 1994.”
The petitioners had argued that the show, hosted by popular actor Nagarjuna, violated public decency and morality by promoting inappropriate content. However, the Court reiterated that the law does not mandate pre-censorship of programs broadcast on private channels. The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that merely submitting photographs of alleged obscene scenes was sufficient grounds for preventing the show from airing.
The judgment also emphasized that if the petitioners felt strongly about the content of the show, they were free to pursue the appropriate legal channels to resolve their grievances. “By enclosing a few photographs and claiming they 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,” the Court concluded.
In its final ruling, the Court dismissed both PIL petitions, noting that they lacked merit. The bench stated, “We cannot convince ourselves to grant relief to the petitioner as was prayed for. The present writ petitions (PILs) are found to be without any merit and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.”
The petitioners were represented by Advocate Gundala Siva Prasada Reddy, while the Union of India was represented by Central Government Counsel Venna Hemanth Kumar. Senior Advocates O Manohar Reddy and C Raghu appeared for the other respondents involved in the case.
