The Supreme Court bench headed by CJI SA Bobde has granted protection to the promoter of XXX Season 2 from Alt Balaji, Ekta Kapoor over the petition filed by her against the order of Madhya Pradesh High Court which has denied to quash the FIR, filed by the Anapurna Police, against her, over the transmission of an episode in Web Series named XXX Uncensored on Zee 5, and which was promoted by ALT Balaji.
FIR Registered Against Ekta Kapoor in relation to Alt Balaji XXX Season 2
The complaint was filed by a resident of Indore, named Valmik Sakaragaye alleging that the show XXX Season 2 airing on ALT Balaji is obscene and hurts religious feelings and it was also mentioned that a particular scene also portrays the Indian Army’s Uniform objectionable.
Film/TV Producer was booked under the following Sections of Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 294 i.e. Obscene Acts and Songs, Section 298 i.e. Uttering, words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person, Section 34 i.e. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention and Section 67 i.e. Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form, Section 67-A i.e., Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc. in electronic form, of Information Technology Act, 2000 and under Section 3 of State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005.
M.P High Court refused to Quash the FIR
A Single Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) headed by Justice Shailendra Shukla, had rejected the argument of Ekta Kapoor, Managing Director of ALT Balaji seeking to quash the FIR registered against her.
As per the producer, she was unaware of the content of the episode. In response to this argument the court said that she, being the Managing Director of the Platform, where the show was released, it can be assumed that she has the knowledge about the content.
The court said relying on Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000,
“in the aforesaid Provision, there are no such words that the person who publishes or transmits or caused to be published or transmitted in the electronic form any lascivious material or such material which appeals to prurient interest was having or supposed to be having the knowledge about the content of the material. Thus, even if the content is not known and a person publishes or transmits or caused to do so even without knowledge, provisions of Section 67 of IT Act, 2000, would be attracted. Presumption of knowledge on part of the petitioner shall have to be assumed and the onus will be upon the petitioner to rebut such presumption by leading evidence.”
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgement from the court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also contribute blog, articles, story tip, judgment and many more and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
