What Appears Obscene To Petitioner May Not Be To Majority Of Citizenry In Contemporary Times: Andhra Pradesh HC Dismisses PILs Against 'Bigg Boss Telugu'

A bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati emphasied 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 Court also added that enclosing a few photographs and claiming that they were obscene would not per se suffice to prevent the respondents from screening their show.

The petition, moved by one K. Jagadishwara Reddy, argued that the show promotes obscenity, vulgarity, and violence and depicts anti-moral activities and abusive behaviour, which negatively impacts children and young people, ultimately causing harm to society.

The petition, tagged with another 2018 petition against Bigg Boss Telugu 3, also questioned the inaction of the relevant authorities in taking appropriate action against the show.

In its order, the division bench observed that while the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, and the Rules framed thereunder provide a comprehensive mechanism for addressing complaints, the petitioners had failed to utilise any of the remedies available under the Act and the Rules.

The Court noted that the petitioners had only filed a complaint with the Ministry of Home Affairs, which was forwarded to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The Ministry, in turn, referred the matter to the Broadcast Content Complaints Council (BCCC).

In a communication dated 15.10.2019, the BCCC advised the petitioners to take remedial action, including filing a complaint, which the petitioners did not pursue in this case, the Court noted.

The Court also observed that while the petitioner may feel strongly about the content being aired by the show producers as containing scenes that are abhorrent or obscene to decency and morality and thus violate the Programme Code, the Court added that 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.

In this regard, the Court also referred to the Top Court's judgment in the case of Aveek Sarkar & Anr vs State Of West Bengal And Anr, wherein the Apex Court had to examine as to whether the photographs of Boris Becker with his fiancée could be stated to be objectionable in the sense that it violated Section 292(1) of IPC, which envisaged that a picture or article would be deemed to be obscene.

In this case, the Supreme Court observed that though the case concerned a situation from 1994, it was in 2014 and thus, while judging whether a particular photograph, article, or book is obscene, regard must be had to contemporary mores and national standards and not the standard of a group of susceptible or sensitive persons.

The Division bench also referred to the 1965 judgment of the Top Court in Ranjit D. Udeshi vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein it was underscored 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”

Against this backdrop, the CJ-led bench opined that the petitioner ought to have resorted to the mechanism prescribed under the Rules of 1995 to air his grievance before the competent authorities, which the petitioner had 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,” the Court further remarked as it dismissed the PIL plea.