Half episode, where the same IPS got her bailed out. And no one knows whatever happened to his inquiry. A disclaimer would have justified more than this.
The response I received was more on the lines that P is an antagonist who plotted and stuff. Even the appeal gave the same response, when highlighted only V's actions and never P. As an righteous IPS his actions have an impact leading to wrong messaging. But they clearly ignored that, and put this entirely on creative liberties and actions of an antagonist. Though they did acknowledge that sensitive topics should be handled carefully and wrong actions should not be glorified. Hence, they have given the appropriate message to them. But for one episode they can't shut down a show (when did i even mention about shutting down the show?). And it was not just one episode. There were multiple complaints. They also said all complaints on this topic has hence been dismissed.
"
This is with reference to the appeals pertaining to the programme "Ghum Hai Kisi Ke Pyaar Mein" on Star Plus.
The Council viewed the episodes and found that the female antagonist, in keeping with her scheming nature, became the unintended surrogacy recipient of Virat and Sai’s child. BCCC also felt that the doctor’s behaviour in threatening Pakhi with police action for keeping everyone in the dark, while undergoing the surrogacy process, was justified and consequential in mitigating the wrong act that was done.
The Council felt the show is a work of fiction and while crime and deprecation are displayed in the context of the story, it should never be in the realm of encouragement or glorification. It should also be noted that criminal acts, when handled with sufficient care have remained components of fictional storytelling.
The Council directed the channel to be more responsive and conscious of such storylines and the irrepressible need to handle such portrayal sensitively. It was of the opinion that viewers are concerned with overall projection and any effort on part of the Council to make an intervention will subvert the intricacies of the storyline. However, the channel must also be aware of the impact that such plots/sub-plots may have on the viewers and sensitize its programming teams accordingly.
Though the Council is fully seized of the issue that channels do take creative liberties in depiction and portrayal but issues that concern sensitive topics like surrogacy must not be prolonged to hurt viewer sensibilities.
The Council felt that whatever incongruities may arise through a particular episode could not be held responsible for the entire show and DISPOSED OF the complaints."
Chat Clubs
Members Lounge
1.7k