IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUIDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.

In

OF 2015

the

Matter

of

Exercise of Powers of
the Honourable Court
Under

Article

226

of

Constitution of India for

taking suitable Action
for maintaining Public
Dignity,

Order

Taking

action

the

Culprits

and
against

accordance with law

1.

Dr. Sharmila W/o. Sandesh Ghuge

Aged about 42 years,
Occupation: Service,
R/o. B/102, Madhupuri Apts,
Gokhale Road, Dahanurkarwadi,
Kandivili (West), Mumbai- 400067
Email :sharmila.ghuge@gmail.com
..
.. //VERSUS//

1.

State of Maharashtra

PETITIONER

in

through Chief Secretary,

Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032
Email: chiefsecretary@maharashtra.gov.in
2.

Commissioner of Police, Mumbai

Police Commissioner office,
D.N. Road,
Mumbai- 400001
Email: cp.mumbai@mahapolitica.gov.in

3.

Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110001.
...RESPONDENTS

TO,
THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE
OTHER

HONBLE

JUDGES

OF

PETITION

OF

AND
THIS

HONBLE COURT
THE

HUMBLE

THE

PETITIONERS

ABOVENAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH :
1.

The petitioner holds a doctorate in law and works as a

full time faculty in Jitendra Chauhan College of Law, Ville

Parle (West), Mumbai. She has also written and published
various research articles on socio-legal issues in National

and International Journals to create awareness in the

society. The petitioner has presented several research papers
at National and International Conferences with special
reference to awaken the society about womens rights. Being
a faculty of law, the Petitioner desires that law of land which
provides and guarantees rights and protection to women and
has

also

defined

the

limits

of

decency

should

be

implemented and strictly followed in the true spirit and not

merely in letter.
2.

The petitioner is a public spirited person and a law

abiding citizen of India. The petitioner has filed various

public interest litigations in the Supreme Court of India and
Bombay

High

Court.

recent

PIL

filed

for

effective

implementation of the Maharashtra Fire Prevention and Life

Safety Measures Act, 2006 is pending before the Honorable
Bombay High Court.

The petitioner has deep roots in the

society and has great attachment with the high heritage and
unique culture of the Nation, which is the reason why the
petitioner is deeply pained to witness the cause of the
present petition which is against the jurisprudential aspect
of decency and morality imbibed in the law of the Nation.
3.

That, the petitioner being a responsible citizen is

desirous of taking up the issues involved in the present writ

petition,

with

the

authorities

concerned.

It

is

highly

significant to bring it to the notice of the Honorable Court

the recent incident of a show involving gross affront and
disrespect to various individuals expressed in abusive and
filthy language which has most unpleasant consequences on
the young generation. Therefore, the petitioner decided to file
the present petition.

4.

The

petitioner

is

constrained

to

approach

this

Honourable Court in the larger public interest, pointing out

to this Honourable Court about the indecent and obscene
language used in the All India Bakchod, a roast show,
commonly known as the AIB Knockout show, which was
held on 20th December 2014, by various film stars which not
only will adversely affect the young minds but will have
unfathomable sweeping effect on the social fabric of the
nation. Needless to mention that the show filled with
vulgarly spiced and peppered jokes is spreading like a viral
at an accelerating stride through the medium of you tube
video.

5.

That, the petitioner has filed the present petition in

public interest and no personal interest of the petitioner is

involved in the subject matter of the present writ petition.
The petitioner is seeking indulgence of this Honble Court to
pass and issue appropriate directions in the larger public
interest, so that the laws are adhered to protect the essence
of dignity of women, maintain decent behavior in the society
and to assure that the quintessence of democracy is not
compromised in the name of comedy and entertainment. It is
respectfully submitted that respecting dignity of women is an
essential postulate of supreme law of the land. Moreover,
India being the largest democracy of the world it is not only
important to monitor but deracinate any act or statement
which is in furtherance of lowering the dignity of women.

That, the petitioner had read in the newspaper about

the AIB show which was performed live on 20th December

2014 at NSCI Worli viewed by more than 4000 people as
audience and the same has been uploaded on You Tube on
28th January 2015. AIB Knockout's guests of honour were
Bollywood Actors Mr. Arjun Kapoor and Mr. Ranveer Singh.
The "roastmaster" (or master of ceremonies) was Film
Producer Mr. Karan Johar. The roasters were All India
Bakchod (Mr. Tanmay Bhat, Mr. Gursimran Khamba, Mr.
Rohan Joshi and Mr. Ashish Shakya), television host Mr.
Raghu Ram, Film Critic Mr. Rajeev Masand, (who himself is
the former member of Censor Board) as well as comedians
Ms. Aditi Mittal and Mr. Abish Matthew were a part of the
show. The AIB Knockout show featured a galaxy of famous
Bollywood stars who did not leave a single sentence to be
uttered without obscene and indecent words. The petitioner
saw the panel discussion on 1st February 2015 on the
Channel India News which featured imminent personalities
from diverse sector to discuss the issue of the indecent jokes
cracked and obscene comments on women by the public
icons of Bollywood and other persons participating in the
AIB show and the video uploaded on you tube. That, the
petitioner was shocked and surprised to note that the video
of the show after been uploaded on you tube has attracted
more than 10 million viewers in just a span of three days
and it has escalated up to 10,76,197 on the third day. In fact
the number of people watching this video is amplifying every
minute not enabling the petitioner to mention the exact
figure of the same. Copy which is annexed herewith and
marked as EXHIBIT -

7.

That, upon coming to know about such a program

from the Television Show by name Kalank hosted by News

India TV Channel on 1st February, 2015, the petitioner
being a law faculty discussed this issue in the classroom
while discussing the Constitutional Protection for Women on
2nd February 2015. For the surprise of the petitioner almost
all the students pursuing their three year LL.B. course had
seen the video and gave their opinions about the same. The
petitioner after listening to the students, out of anxiety and
social concern personally saw the video, however could not
completely see till the end due to the licentious and offensive
language used in each statement of the performers of the
show. It is most respectfully submitted that the language
used in the show is unbearable for any cultured and reputed
person of civilized background.
8.

It is pertinent to mention that, each sentence used

throughout the show by the Bollywood stars, Mr. Karan

Johar, Mr. Ranveer Singh, Mr. Arjun Kapoor and the others
is extremely offensive not only to the dignity of women but
also to the basic values cherished in our country. All kinds
of vulgar jokes including vile words, digs at Karan Johars
homosexual orientation, Ranveers promiscuity and Arjuns
professional failings were traded on the show. The audience
has enjoyed the show with ostentatious laughter without
realizing the future effect of such shows on the youth and
the nation. The said content repeated several times in the
show violates the provisions of Section 292 and 294 of the
Indian Penal Code as well as various other provisions of law.
Moreover,

the

adverse

comments

past

on

various

communities, such Christian religion and Sindhi community

categorically not only violates Section 295-A of the Indian

Penal Code but also deeply hurts the sentiments of Public at

large. Similarly, the use of smutty and vulgar gestures
during the show and indecorous and undignified remarks on
women with reference to rape violates Section 23 of the
Indecent Representation of Womens Act.

9.

It is most respectfully submitted that the whole

conversation for a period of almost three hours shall be bad

taste to be reproduced before the Honorable court for the
very reason that the petitioner may fail to put forth such
dirty words which are beyond articulation and expression by
any decent person. However, following are some of the
statements made in show:

"I am not saying that Ranveer Singh does Sh** films but truly,
the last good thing he was in, was Deepika Padukone."
"Ranveer spent 4 years in the industry. One of acting and
three yrs of getting over Anushka Sharma."
"Arjun has lost the kilos faster than Deepika lost her dating
standards."
"In 2 States, Arjun plays a Punjabi guy who falls for a hot
Sounth Indian. So basically he played Boney Kapoor. "
"Parineeti Chopra is not here tonight as we told her she will get
f***ed by 10 dudes in front of 4000 thousand people. Karan
Johar is here for the same reason."

"Deepika and Ranveer, what an awesome couple. Deepika is a

state level Badminton player. Ranveer is a national level sex
offender. "
"Kuch Kuch Hota Hain is Ranveer's favorite. Even today he
will reach out to a box of tissues. Because he is the only guy
who will j**k out to Farida Jalal."
"Arjun and Ranveer send out the message that if you work
hard, then one day, you too can S**k Adi Chopra's C*ck."
"No matter how remote, dangerous or smelly, if there is a hole,
Ranveer Singh will enter it. "
"We wanted Ranbir, but we only managed Ranveer..which is
what Deepika did, so it should be okay"
F***ing, Abuses by Mother name, Bhosdi Ke, Ch**t (Hindi
Word for vagina), L**d (Hindi Word for penis), Male & Woman
Genitals, were used very often.
Petitioner submits there much of obscenity and vulgar
language and expressions were used in the said program
that the petitioner is feeling ashamed of reproducing the
same. For the said reason, a Copy of said program as
available on You Tube in form of CD, is annexed herewith
and marked as EXHIBIT - B.

10.

That, though the show was viewed by more than 4000

people as live performance but the telecast of the show after

being uploaded on you tube has multiplied the viewers into
millions within few hours. Needless to mention that the so

called comedy stuffed with inappropriate words outraging

the modesty of women and insulting the dignity of women
has mushroomed like at an unbelievable speed through out
the country. Allowing such act on part Respondents
tarnishes the right to dignity of women guaranteed as a
fundamental

right

under

Article

21

of

the

Indian

Constitution. Additionally it the Fundamental duty of every

citizen of Indian enumerated under article 51 A (e) of the
Indian Constitution to renounce practices derogatory to the
dignity of women. Whereas, the film stars have made a
deliberate attempt to lower the dignity of women by showing
their insensitive attitude towards the most heinous crime of
rape by passing several jokes on rape and gang rape enjoying
the flavor of humour for the most unfortunate act any
women can ever face in her life. Not only this, cracking jokes
on gays, race, rape, ebola and making homophobic jokes is
an absolute insult to not only to women but all the
individuals. That such a rapid augmentation of audience to
this video is unquestionably aiming to adversely affect the
youth of this nation. Particularly the sway and influence of
these Film stars is beyond imagination on the youth. These
celebrities are youth icons and the young generation blindly
follows them which indeed is misleading and disgraceful for
the nation in such incidences.
11.

It is most humbly submitted that, it is highly

significant to mention that the Indian Constitution under

Article 19(1) (a) which guarantees freedom of speech and
expression is subject to reasonable state restriction in the
interest of decency or morality. Any indecent remarks passed
or words used to lower the dignity of women are obscene in
law. It should be noted that obscenity in India is defined as

"offensive to modesty or decency; lewd, filthy and repulsive."

Needless to state that the test of obscenity is whether the
publication, telecast, read as a whole, has a tendency to
deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such
immoral influences and therefore each work must be
examined by itself. The way to express something or to say
something should be decent one. It should not affect the
morality of the society adversely.
12.

That, the petitioner has learnt that as a first reaction

to the program, after the public uproar, the Honourable

Cultural Affairs Minister of Government of Maharashtra Mr.
Vinod Tawde, made a public statement that action will taken
if obscenity / vulgarity is found. However,

from the

subsequent statement from the DNA newspaper dated 2nd

February 2015 it appears that he changed his stand to the
effect that that on AIB Roast, will only enquire if the AIB
had taken appropriate certificate. No moral policing If they
allowed by law, I cant stop them. It is surprising to know
that the Minister of Cultural Affairs is supposed to be the
sole guardian of decent behaviour in the State is unaware
whether the AIB show had opted the required permission or
not and that he is of the opinion that even if illegalities are
performed, merely because permission was taken to hold the
program, nothing can be done. Petitioner respectfully
submits if such a blanket statement is accepted and acted
upon, there will be nothing less that suicidal, in as much as,
upon getting permission to conduct such programs, people
will perform all sort of illegal acts to poison or corrupt the
mind of public at large and more particularly youth of the
country. It is also surprising to note from the press reports
that despite the fact that complaints have been made to

various police authorities in Mumbai on 2nd February 2015,

it is learnt that the police authority is not taking any action
and is making a show of conducting enquiry about the show.
This is despite the fact that the complaints lodged discloses
a cognizable nature of offences. Still no offences are yet
registered against any person in the present matter. Copies
of the news reports about the complaints lodged in the
matter, are

annexed herewith and collectively marked as

EXHIBIT - C

13.

That, the video of the AIB show which has been

uploaded on 28th January 2015 has not been verified by any

of the authorities,

whether the content of the video is

suitable to be thrown open to public at large. The said video

has been uploaded by the organizers of the AIB show as
evident from the titles of the video. Neither the organizers
nor the respondents felt the need and importance of verifying
the content before putting the video on air, which needless to
state has gone viral amongst people, more particularly
youths. It is pertinent to mention that, if it was a show of an
ordinary person getting permission for the same would have
been a great hassle, however as it was by Bollywood Big
stars event the permission was granted even without
verifying the nature and content of the show. Though the
show was hosted in the name of charity any prudent human
being will not be able to establish a connection or any
rational nexus between obscene gestures using offensive
language and charity. Needless to mention that the AIB show
has crossed all known cannons of decent behavior and
civilized freedom of speech and expression expected in the

society by the reputed and known personalities of Bollywood

who are looked upon as idols by millions of their fans.
14.

It is most respectfully submitted that, the Act of the

AIB Team of uploading the video on you tube and making it

available for the whole world without following the legal
provisions and norms itself is a gross failure and miscarriage
of justice. It is categorically mentioned under Section 66A of
the Information Technology Act, 2000 that the content to be
communicated should not be insulting for any person. It is
also pertinent to note that for the purpose of this section,
terms electronic mail and electronic mail message means
a message or information created or transmitted or received
on a computer, computer system, computer resource or
communication

device

including

attachments

in

text,

images, audio, video and any other electronic record, which

may be transmitted with the message. Therefore it was the
responsibility and duty of YOUTUBE to follow the procedure
and verify the content of the video uploaded which is a
storehouse of insults to numerous individuals under the
blanket of comedy and entertainment.
15.

It also important to bring it to the kind notice of the

Honorable Court that Section 79 of the amended Information

Technology Act, 2000 provides the broad principle for
intermediaries. Under the Information Technology Act, 2002,
an intermediary with respect to any particular electronic
message means any person who on behalf of another person
receives, stores or transmits that message or provides any
service with respect to that message. It is an established
fact, that the intermediary in the present case which is
YOUTUBE has miserably failed in adhering to the said broad

principles. One of the reasons for the same could be that

YOUTUBE is controlled by its management at United States.
Although the said website is providing services and doing
business in India, but the fact that its management is
outside India, the management is conveniently ignoring to
perform its duties and adhere to the laws of India. It is thus
submitted that the respondent No. 3 may be directed to
frame the guidelines for such intermediaries and also to
device the mechanism for dealing with such mischief.
16.

It is imperative to mention that, whether the required

censor certificate and requisite permissions were obtained by

the AIB Team before uploading the video. It is most
respectfully submitted to the Honorable Court that, the
aforesaid is the current legal position in India which impacts
Government departments providing social media facilities on
their network. In the light of the stringent provisions of the
law and the subsequent legal consequences for noncompliance of the law, it is therefore absolutely essential that
the relevant Government department providing social media
facilities such as the you tube must completely comply with
all the above mentioned legal parameters as mandatorily
stipulated by the Information Technology Act, 2000 as
amended by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act,
2008 and various rules, regulations and notifications issued
there under.
17.

It is worthwhile to bring it to the kind notice of the

Honourable Court that the show did not even spare the
respected Prime Minister, Mr. Narendra Modi from the dirty
jokes. Several stalwart politicians including the former Prime
Minister of India, Mr Manmohan singh, Mr. Rahul Gandhi,

Ms. Smriti Irani, etc., have been insulted by the various

comments passed by the performers of the AIB show. This
act showing disrespect to the Prime Minister of the nation
under the banner of comedy should not be tolerated and
accepted as humour. Each individual who is looked upon as
a role model must set forth benchmarks before the young
generation and not such disgraceful statements made for
worthy personalities of national stature.

18.

It is significant to mention that, since the AIB show

has featured such indecent words, the matter has been

taken up by a news channel, namely INDIA NEWS. A written
complaint has been filed on 2nd February 2015 by Mr.
Akhilesh Tiwari, President of Bhrahim Ekta Seva Santha,
Mumbai. The said complaint is filed on grounds of use of
extremely vulgar, abusive language which is step towards
ruining the clean image of Indian culture and dignity of
women misleading todays youth. Copy which alongwith the
subsequent statement made by the said person to the press
that the program was nothing less that a porn film, are
annexed herewith and collectively marked as EXHIBIT - D.

19.

The Petitioner respectfully submits that granting

permission to host such shows and the telecast of such

shows on the social media via you tube is tarnishing the
image of our society and thus disrupting the social fabric
which is interwoven with golden threads of decency, morality
and values, is thus violative of rights of citizens. It is
respectfully submitted that this Honorable Court has been
assigned the active role of protecting rights of citizens and

has vast powers which needs to be exercised to evolve its

jurisdiction with creativity, vision, vigilance and pragmatic
wisdom, in the larger interest of the society, in as much as, if
the Honorable Court

fails to uphold the spirit of social

engineering based on the strong fundamental of a civilized

society at the required time it will lead the democracy to
cripple with directionless citizens.

It is needless to state

here that, in cluster of judgments the judiciary has

substantiated its competence and potential to protect rights
of individuals and deracinate such wrong acts from the
society. The proactive role of judiciary for welfare of citizens
and as the guardian of the social values covers wide
amplitude. It is further submitted that from the aforesaid
facts and circumstances it is clear that in respect of the
subject matter of the present petition the respondents have
apathetically failed to take appropriate steps and issuing
necessary directions to control the said show and the
telecast of the video on the you tube, which establishes the
indifference and insensitivity of the respondents to its
mandatory duties towards the society and public at large.
The petitioner respectfully submits that therefore it is the
need of hour that the Honourable Court should direct the
respondents to effectively control the permissions for such
programs

and

implement

the

provisions

required

for

uploading videos on you tube at the earliest.

20.

It is most humbly submitted that respecting the

dignity of individuals in the society is an essential postulate

of human civilization and hence it is indispensable to restrict
the telecast of such shows on you tube in order to guide,
strengthen and improve the future generation of our nation.
Today if such type of shows and unrestricted telecast of

videos is not curtailed than it will percolate soon and be a

part of the culture all over the country, leaving behind the
cherished values and norms of decency followed for since
ages in India.
21.

It is pertinent to mention here that, the organizers of

the show have defended their action by issuing a press

release.

In the said press release, the organizer have

fearlessly declared that they have been such events in the

past and they would continue with the same. It is submitted
that for continuing with their disgrace the organizers of the
show have claimed that it is their fundamental right, as they
have been guaranteed the freedom of expression under the
Constitution. Annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit- E
is the copy of said press release for kind perusal of this
Honourable Court. Needless, to state the manner in which
this press release has been issued and the language used in
the same reflects that the organizers do not fear the law of
the land and consider themselves above the law.

22.

That, the petitioner herein has no personal gain,

private motive or oblique reason in filing the present public

interest litigation. The petitioner herein undertakes to pay
cost as ordered by the court, if it is ultimately held that the
petition is frivolous or has been filed for extraneous
consideration or that it lacks bonafides.

The petitioner

undertakes that she will disclose the source of information

leading to the filing of the public interest litigation as and
when called upon by the Court to do so.

22.

That, the petitioners have approached this Honourable

Court invoking the extraordinary, writ jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the petitioners
are left with no other alternate or equally efficacious remedy
under law, especially in the present scenario that written
complaints have been registered to make out a cognizable
offence against the respondents, yet no action has been
taken against the respondents. Hence the petitioner is forced
to knock the doors of the judiciary.
23.

That,

the

proceeding

nor

petitioners
her

has

have

not

approached

filed
any

any

other

other

court

including the Honourable Apex Court in relation to the

subject matter of the present writ petition.

Hence this petition.

PRAYER:
appropriate

It

is

therefore

writ,

order

prayed
or

that

direction

by
this

Honourable Court may kindly be pleased to:

(a)

Exercise

Jurisdiction

its
under

Extra

Ordinary

Article

226

of

Constitution of India, in the peculiar facts

and circumstances of the present case;
(b)

Direct the Respondent No. 1 to verify

the contents and purpose of the program,

which involves larger public interest and
to take appropriate action in respect

thereof and also to frame appropriate

guidelines so as to ensure

controlling

and regulating holding of such programs

on the basis of permission to be granted
by the authorities for such shows, in
future,

in

the

peculiar

facts

and

circumstances of the case;

(c)

Issue appropriate writ, order or

direction,

exercising

the

powers

of

Honourable Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, thereby directing
Respondents to take

appropriate steps,

such as deputing some officials to check

the details of such public shows etc., while
the program is in action in order to
monitor and regulate the program and to
ensure that such

incidences are not

repeated in future;
(d)

Direct the Respondent no. 2 to take

appropriate and immediate action against

the persons directly or indirectly involved
in holding the said show, using obscene,
vulgar and indecent language in public
and also uploading the video of the same
for making it available to the public at
large, in as much as in respect of these
acts, cognizable offences are made out;
(e)

Order Respondent no. 3 to monitor

the videos uploaded on the YouTube and

restrict uploading such videos in future,

which adversely affects the Public at large.
(f)

Direct the respondent No. 3 to take

suitable action against the Intermediaries

i.e. YOUTUBE for violation of section 79 of
the Information Technology Act, 2000;
(g)

Direct the respondent No. 3 to frame

the

guidelines

for

regulating

the

intermediaries like YOUTUBE and others;

(h)

And be further pleased to pass any

such other order/s and grant such other

reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper by
this Honble Court in the facts and
circumstances of the instant case as well
as in the interest of justice.
AND FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS THE
PETITIONERS

SHALL

REMAIN

DUTY

BOUND AND EVER PRAY.

MUMBAI
DATED : 05/02/2015
PETITIONER
ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER

VERIFICATION

I, Dr. Sharmila W/o. Sandesh Ghuge, Aged about 42

years, Occupation: Service, R/o. B/102, Madhupuri Apts,
Gokhale Road, Dahanurkarwadi,

Kandivili

(West),

Mumbai- 400067, the petitioner No. 1 herein, do hereby take

oath and state on solemn affirmation as under :
1.

That, I am the Petitioner No. 1 herein. I am aware of all

the facts involved in the present matter.

2.

That, the instant Petition is drafted by our counsel, as

per our instructions and the same has been read over and
explained to me and has been understood by me.
3.

That, the contents of paras 1 to 23

above are true

and correct to my personal knowledge and belief, as far as

based on facts and the contents based on law, are as advised
to us by our lawyer, which I believe to be correct.
Hence, verified and signed at Mumbai on this 5th day
of February 2015

Deponent
I know and identify the Deponent
Before Me
Advocate