A division bench comprising Justice N Kirubakran and B Pugalenthi, Pointing out the Obscene advertisements on all television channels and are being viewed irrespective of the age, said: “Anybody who sees these programmes will be shocked by the pornographic content. Some advertisements, though look like promotion of aphrodisiac, popularly known as ‘love drugs’, are like a porn film".
The Judges cited the cable network rules that insist on not offending “morality”, “decency” and “religious susceptibilities” of the subscribers and that the female form carried in cable service ought to be tasteful and aesthetic, the bench said: “The programmes/ads, telecast in the name of condoms, aphrodisiacs and inner wears, are violating the Rules provided under Rule 7(1) of the Cable Television Network Rules". The bench noted while granting the interim injunction as sought for in staying the relay of such ads, “Nudity is available in the name of doctor’s advice as well as advertisements and it is freely available and is being viewed by all including children. It will affect the minds of youngsters and children".
Also pointing the reply given by the Centre that the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 do not provide for pre-censorship of any programme and advertisement and appropriate action is taken as and when a violation is established, the bench held: “Given that, the Centre has to answer on the censorship of the programmes telecast as contemplated under Section 5(A) of the Cinematographic Act 1952.”