In a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) challenging the failure of regulatory bodies in controlling obscene content on the reality programme Bigg Boss, the high court has ordered the Centre to file rebuttal affidavits. Ketireddy Jagadeeswar reddy filed the PIL, which targets both the third and sixth seasons of the programme.
G siva prasad Reddy made the claim on behalf of the petitioner that the show's unedited and uncontrolled presentation of material not appropriate for youngsters under the age of 18 is having a harmful effect on the next generation. Additionally, he said that the Union administration had not responded to his requests for action and asked for guidelines for controlling the content.
The high court bench in charge of the case ruled that participants' choice of attire for the show and spectators' decision of whether to watch the programme or not are both choices. Everyone has a right to choose what to dress and what to watch, the bench declared. The bench added that the petitioner is allowed to cease viewing the show if he doesn't like it. The attorneys representing Star india Pvt Ltd and Maa tv contended that the petitioner could have addressed his complaints through alternate channels rather than going to court, and that he should have done so.
G siva prasad Reddy made the claim on behalf of the petitioner that the show's unedited and uncontrolled presentation of material not appropriate for youngsters under the age of 18 is having a harmful effect on the next generation. Additionally, he said that the Union administration had not responded to his requests for action and asked for guidelines for controlling the content.
The high court bench in charge of the case ruled that participants' choice of attire for the show and spectators' decision of whether to watch the programme or not are both choices. Everyone has a right to choose what to dress and what to watch, the bench declared. The bench added that the petitioner is allowed to cease viewing the show if he doesn't like it. The attorneys representing Star india Pvt Ltd and Maa tv contended that the petitioner could have addressed his complaints through alternate channels rather than going to court, and that he should have done so.
