Bombay High Court's Bold Stand: "If You Don't Like It, Don't Watch It" Dismisses Plea Against Zee TV Show

In a powerful affirmation of viewer autonomy and artistic freedom, the Bombay High Court recently delivered a decisive blow to a public interest litigation (PIL) aimed at halting the broadcast of Zee TV's upcoming show, "Tum Se Tum Tak." The court's sharp response to the plea was unequivocal: "If you don't like it, don't watch it." This ruling sends a clear message about the judiciary's stance on content regulation, especially when it comes to fictional narratives.

The PIL was filed by 'Sukanya', a women's organization, which vociferously argued that the show, based on its promotional material, seemed to promote an "illicit relationship" that would ultimately "destroy the institution of marriage" and undermine the "family system" at large.

The petitioners expressed grave concerns about the show's potential negative influence on societal values, particularly amongst impressionable audiences.

However, the bench, comprising Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice F. P. Pooniwalla, remained unimpressed by these assertions. They pointed out a crucial detail: the show itself had not even aired yet; only a promotional teaser was available for public viewing.

The judges questioned how an entire series could be condemned based solely on a brief promo, highlighting the speculative nature of the allegations.

More importantly, the High Court underscored the fundamental principle of choice available to television viewers. "If you do not like the show, you stop watching it.

You can change the channel," the court firmly stated, emphasizing that in an era of abundant content, individuals possess the agency to select what they consume. The judges further reiterated that television serials are works of fiction, and the discerning public is generally capable of differentiating between reel life and reality.

The court found no compelling reason or legal basis to intervene in the broadcast of a fictional television series, especially given the broad range of choices available to viewers.

Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reaffirming the principle that viewers hold the ultimate remote control over what enters their homes, not the courts based on speculative fears. This landmark dismissal serves as a powerful reminder of the delicate balance between public sentiment and artistic expression in a democratic society.