Brand Marketing
FMCG firms cut senior roles by 32%; Total headcount shrinks 9.26% in FY25
Bombay High Court criticises FIR against 'Tum Se Tum Tak' serial, suggests community service for complainant
Upon a suggestion by Advocate General Dr Birendra Saraf, the bench indicated it may order Sharma to perform community service for at least a month.
Upon a suggestion by Advocate General Dr Birendra Saraf, the bench indicated it may order Sharma to perform community service for at least a month.
The Bombay High Court has strongly criticised a complaint filed against Zee TV over its new show Tum Se Tum Tak, which depicts a romance between a 46-year-old man and a 19-year-old woman. A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad remarked that those who find a programme offensive should simply refrain from watching it, rather than seeking legal action.
The case concerns a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Sunil Sharma, who alleged that the storyline “hurt sentiments.” Zee TV petitioned the court to quash the FIR. During Tuesday’s hearing, the bench questioned the basis of the complaint, observing - “What is offensive in the serial? If we go by your idea, we will have to switch off the TV itself. A 46-year-old actor falls in love with a 19-year-old girl — will that hurt sentiments? We can understand if a show incites communal tension, but this is not such a case. If you don’t like a movie or show, don’t watch it.”
Identity Discrepancies and Alleged Misconduct
The court also expressed concern over discrepancies in the complainant’s identity. Initially, Sharma introduced himself to the Cyber Cell as “Sunil Sharma,” but later claimed his name was “Sunil Mahendra Sharma.” Official documents, however, identified him as “Mahendra Sanjay Sharma.” The judges noted that the complainant had signed documents in three different ways, calling it “a mischief played in the court hall.”
The bench questioned why Sharma did not maintain anonymity if he feared repercussions, adding that his shifting identities suggested “vexatious conduct” and “mala fide intent.”
Possible Community Service Order
Upon a suggestion by Advocate General Dr Birendra Saraf, the bench indicated it may order Sharma to perform community service for at least a month, such as cleaning and mopping at JJ Hospital. The judges stressed that he should carry out the work personally and not send a proxy.
Criticism of Cyber Police Lapses
The court also censured the Cyber Cell’s nodal officer for registering the FIR without verifying the complainant’s identity or documents. The judges described the officer’s conduct as “stupidity,” stating - “Your officer is not a child. This policeman didn’t even think to cross-check the complainant’s identity before filing the complaint. Let proper disciplinary action be taken as per service rules.” The court has reserved its order in the matter.
SPOTLIGHT
For Puneet Chandok, leadership is as much about the inner journey as it is about external results.
Read MoreFedEx, DHL, UPS execs to face rare cross-examination in India antitrust probe
In a fresh twist to a 2022 cartel case, India’s antitrust watchdog has allowed the Federation of Indian Publishers to directly question top courier company executives, a move that could overturn earlier findings and prolong the high-stakes investigation.