'Don't watch it': Bombay HC issues statement over Sharad Kelkar's show Tum Se Tum Tak row

A still from Tum Se Tum Tak

In a dramatic hearing on Tuesday, the Bombay High Court indicated that it may order a complainant to complete community service for filing a contentious First Information Report (FIR) against Zee TV's new serial Tum Se Tum Tak which stars Sharad Kelkar and Niharika Chouksey in leading roles. The show presents a love story between a 46-year-old man and a 19-year-old woman, which the complainant claimed caused "hurt" feelings. As reported by the Law Advice, the statement read.

Here's what the hearing revealed

While reserving orders on Zee TV's petition to quash the FIR, a division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad called the complaint's premise and the complainant's veracity into question.

The bench orally stated, "What is offensive in the serial? If we go by your idea of what is offensive, we will have to switch off the TV entirely. A 46-year-old actor falls in love with a 19-year-old girl - and that will hurt sentiments? We can understand if a show causes communal riots or tension, but here there is nothing of that sort. There is a judgment (Justice Lodha) which clearly says, if you don't like a movie or a show, don't watch it."

Complainant was found guilty of forging their identity

The court was taken aback by the complainant, who had initially given his identity to the Cyber Cell as Sunil Sharma but had previously identified himself as Sunil Mahendra Sharma. Official documents such as his Aadhaar and PAN cards indicated another name - Mahendra Sanjay Sharma.

The judges quizzed his attorney, questioning how such inconsistencies could be justified. The complainant changed his name in the FIR because he was afraid of the consequences of filing a lawsuit against a large media company.

"We understand the need for anonymity, but you claim to be ABC and then reveal yourself to be XYZ." This demonstrates a vexatious and malicious approach. Why didn't you preserve proper anonymity? "This conduct demonstrates malice," Justice Ghuge stated.

The court noted that the complainant had signed documents in three different ways during the same proceedings, adding: "We could even instruct the police to file a FIR against you, but we do not enjoy sending people to jail. "Arthur Road Jail is already full."

Acting on Advocate General Dr. Birendra Saraf's advice, the bench indicated that it may order the complainant to work for one month scrubbing and mopping at JJ Hospital in Mumbai. "He will have to do the community service himself - no proxies, the way he did in court," remarked the judge.

The court also reprimanded the Cyber Cell's nodal officer for filing the FIR without validating the complainant's paperwork. "Your officer is not a child who accepted a candy from a stranger. To say the least, this was foolish. He did not even verify the complainant's identity before filing the complaint or bringing him before us. "Let there be proper departmental action in accordance with service rules," the bench instructed the Advocate General.

The matter has now been reserved for orders, and the complainant may be handed community service as a result of his alleged mischief and deceptive remarks.