The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed two Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions challenging the telecast of the popular reality TV show Bigg Boss Telugu 6, hosted by actor Nagarjuna. The petitioners had alleged that the show promotes obscenity, vulgarity, and abusive behavior, which could negatively impact children and youth.
However, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati rejected these claims, stating that what might appear indecent to some may not necessarily be so for the majority.
“What might appear to be obscene and indecent to the petitioners may not be so for a majority of citizens in the contemporary times,” the Bench observed.
Comprehensive Mechanism in Place
The Court highlighted that the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, and the Rules framed under it provide a detailed mechanism to address grievances regarding obscenity, vulgarity, and violence in television programming. However, it noted that the petitioners had not utilized these remedies.
“They ought to have taken resort to the mechanism prescribed under the Rules to air their grievance before the competent authorities,” the Court stated.
The Bench further clarified that it is not within the Court’s purview to evaluate the content of a program without it first being examined under the prescribed framework.
“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,” the Court emphasized.
No Pre-Censorship for Private Channels
The petitioners also sought a directive preventing the telecast of Bigg Boss Telugu 6 without a censor certificate. However, the Court pointed out that the law does not mandate pre-censorship for programs aired 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,” the Court noted.
Petitions Dismissed
Dismissing the PILs, the Bench concluded, “We cannot convince ourselves to grant relief to the petitioner as was prayed for. The present writ petitions are found to be without any merit and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.”
