Introduction:

In a striking courtroom exchange, the Bombay High Court, comprising Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad, heard Zee TV’s plea to quash an FIR filed against its new serial “Tum Se Tum Tak”. The show, depicting a romantic relationship between a 46-year-old man and a 19-year-old woman, was accused by the complainant of “hurting sentiments.” The bench not only expressed skepticism over the merits of the complaint but also highlighted the complainant’s inconsistent identity declarations, suggesting that his conduct reflected malice and mischief. The court hinted at imposing community service—specifically cleaning and mopping at JJ Hospital—on the complainant, while also admonishing the Cyber Cell for procedural lapses in filing the FIR without verifying the complainant’s true identity.

Arguments on Behalf of Zee TV:

Counsel for Zee TV argued that the complaint was frivolous, without any legal basis, and a blatant misuse of process to harass the channel and restrict creative freedom. They pointed to precedent, including Justice Lodha’s judgment, which clarifies that if someone dislikes a film or TV show, the simple remedy is to avoid watching it rather than seeking to ban it. The defense maintained that the storyline—while unconventional—was a work of fiction that did not promote criminality, communal unrest, or public disorder. Counsel emphasized that the serial’s depiction of an age-gap relationship was a matter of artistic expression protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and that subjective “hurt sentiments” cannot form the basis of criminal prosecution.

Arguments by the Complainant:

The complainant, who initially identified himself in the FIR as “Sunil Sharma,” later revealed conflicting versions of his name, including “Sunil Mahendra Sharma” and, as per official documents, “Mahendra Sanjay Sharma.” His counsel argued that a complainant has the right to lodge a grievance and is not bound to use his real name in the FIR. They contended that anonymity can be preserved, particularly when the complaint is against a powerful media entity, to prevent potential retaliation. Further, they claimed that the portrayal of the relationship in the show was morally objectionable, culturally insensitive, and had the potential to cause societal discomfort, thus justifying the FIR.

Court’s Observations:

The bench was unequivocal in its disapproval of the complaint’s foundation. It questioned what could possibly be “offensive” about a consensual fictional love story between adults and warned that accepting such reasoning would require “switching off the TV itself.” The judges stressed that artistic content cannot be censored merely because of subjective moral disapproval, reiterating that legal intervention is warranted only when there is a tangible threat to public order or a violation of law. They also noted the glaring inconsistencies in the complainant’s identity disclosures, calling his conduct “vexatious” and “indicative of mischief.” The court expressed astonishment at his justification for providing false names, finding no credible explanation for such behavior.

Community Service Suggestion:

Accepting a suggestion from Advocate General Dr. Birendra Saraf, the court indicated its inclination to impose a month-long community service requirement on the complainant, involving cleaning and mopping at JJ Hospital. The bench made it clear that the complainant would be personally required to perform the work and not send a proxy, citing the very manner in which he attempted to manipulate his identity in the court process.

Criticism of Cyber Cell Conduct:

The court also took strong exception to the conduct of the Cyber Cell officer who registered the FIR without verifying the complainant’s true identity. It called the officer’s actions “stupidity” and a dereliction of duty, noting that proper verification could have prevented the matter from escalating. The judges recommended that departmental action be taken against the officer under service rules, making it clear that law enforcement must exercise diligence and responsibility in handling complaints involving serious allegations against large organizations.

Judgment:

The bench reserved the matter for orders, signaling its likely direction by openly questioning the merits of the complaint, the complainant’s credibility, and the procedural lapses of the investigating agency. While the final written order is awaited, the oral observations strongly suggest that the court is leaning towards quashing the FIR and imposing corrective measures—such as community service—on the complainant to deter abuse of the judicial process.