“The Reality Behind Kids Reality Tv Shows : An Assault on Naive Childhood and, Violation of the Human Rights and the Law” - A Plea for Legislation

“Sam will not enjoy his childhood...  Sam is being educated not so as to enjoy himself, but so that other people will enjoy him.1”  Childhood, a stage of human life that is full of innocence, selflessness, playfulness, joy and hope, without any care beyond today. An age, which knows no caste, race or gender. A time when one can be what he is. But do we let the children be what they are, live fully their most precious time, play whatever and with whomever they want to? Perhaps no. More often than not, parents impose their likes and dislikes on the children. Now-a-days yet another catastrophe and injustice, but this time at the hands of parents, can be witnessed with those children who have been blessed with unique talents like dance, singing, acting and ability to perform some risky tasks2. Many General Entertainment Channels (GECs) telecast ‘reality’3 and talent shows, some of which are exclusively for children. Today, children can be seen on television acting in serials (daily soaps), dancing or singing in talent hunt shows or performing unbelievable and risky tasks in Reality TV shows4. Over-ambitious and fame loving parents agree for the auditions of their children, conducted by the content-producers of various talent shows at their (content producers) own terms and conditions which are always one-sided and unfavourable to the child-participant. The child is thus deprived of parental care, health, basic education and childhood, in short his human rights, and he is exposed to a world selfish enough to discount his comfort, steal his childhood in any manner it likes and use him as a source of money-making. Let’s begin with the first step of stepping into the tempting but tantalizing sludgy world.  Reality TV Shows and the ‘Standard form Audition Contract’Â
 The GECSs, now-a-days, telecast variety of reality shows on the television, few5 of which involve performance of such acts which are likely to endanger the mental or physical health, or life of the performer. In some of the shows children may also participate. The procedural formality to participate in the show is to undergo an audition. Sometimes the Judges of a talent show visit various cities for audition and sometimes auditions are held in a particular city only. For the purpose of audition a contract prepared by the shows producer containing terms and conditions (T&Cs) of the audition has to be signed. Since the minor has no capacity to contract in the eyes of law6, his or her parents sign the contract of audition on his behalf. In order to participate in the audition the parents have to accept the stipulations contained in the instrument of the contract in toto. They cannot negotiate the terms of the contract7. The contract, by its very nature, is a standard form contract. The organisers do not accept any responsibility in respect of the care of and detriment to the participant; rather they have complete immunity under the contract.  T&Cs, against Section 23, Indian Contract Act, 1872
 The stipulations contained in such contracts are too a great extent favourable to the show organisers only. For example, clause 5(w) of the Terms and Conditions8 of the Audition for India’s Got Talent-Season 49 clearly lays down that the producer shall not be held liable in the event of injury or any physical or mental harm caused to the participant or even death during the course of the Auditions or the Show (if selected). The terms and conditions10 of Entertainment Ke Liye Aur Bhi Kuch Karega contain the similar provisions. Clause 14 reads as- “Under no circumstance, shall MSM and or the Channel, their directors, employees, officers, affiliates or subsidiaries, be liable to the participants and or any third party for any lost profits or lost opportunity, indirect, special, consequential, incidental, or punitive damages whatsoever.” Clause 17 provides that “MSM and or its directors, employees, officers, affiliates or subsidiaries shall have no liability in tort, contract, or otherwise to the participants.” Such a contract violates section 23 of the Act, which states that if a contract involves or implies injury to the person of another, the consideration or object of such an agreement is unlawful11.  In T&Cs, Question not of ‘Free consent’ but of ‘Whose Consent’Â
 Legally and of course morally it appears quite inconceivable how parents can consent to such a contract which might involve physical or mental harm to their child. The terms and conditions of India’s Got Talent12, provide that the applicant acknowledges that he or she has voluntarily chosen to participate or is the parent or guardian of a minor who authorises his or her child or ward to participate in the Program at his or her own wish and free will. Similar ignorance echoes in the terms and conditions of Indian Idol- Season 6 as follows- “The Participant(s) acknowledges that he or she has voluntarily chosen to participate in the Show at his or her free will and is willing to bear all risk, costs and consequences arising from such participation in the Show. In case the Participant(s) are under the age of eighteen, a letter of consent needs to be submitted by the parent, or legal guardian.”13  Now let’s discuss the legal provisions in respect of the above terms and conditions According to section 13 of the Act, two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense. Section 10 requires free consent of parties competent to contract for a valid contract. The consent in an audition contract may be free but here the question is whether parents are competent enough to consent to and sign such contract which involves risk to their child’s health and may also invite several discomforts to his person. In Srikakulam Subramanyam v. Kurra Subba Rao14 it was held that specific performance of contract can be sought by or against a minor provided that the contract is made by a competent guardian of the minor, for the benefit of the minor and there should be some legal necessity for making the contract15. Of course, the ratio of the judgment does not specifically hold a contract which does not fulfill the conditions, void but it does affect the enforceability and legal value of the contract. Therefore the intention of the Court that can be gathered is; a contract signed by a guardian affecting the interests of his minor child must be for his benefit. If the legality of the audition contract signed by the parents of a minor participant is examined in the light of the above decision it can be argued that neither it is for the benefit of the minor nor there is any legal necessity to enter into the contract.  Undoubtedly there is no specific provision in Indian law which allows parents to sign such a contract or prohibits them from doing so however, if we have a gaze at the relevant legal provisions we would infer that in no case a minor’s interest can be put to danger. The provisions are, if it is correct to use the term, minor-friendly. For example, though a minor’s contract is void but if he has fulfilled his part of obligation such a contract can be enforced for the benefit of the minor16. The rule of estoppel is not applicable against a minor to enforce a contract17. A minor cannot become partner of a partnership firm but he can be admitted to the benefits of parnership18. In the matters of appointment of a person as guardian for a Hindu minor by a Court, the welfare of the minor shall be the paramount consideration19. The Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 imposes duties upon the guardian to look to his (minor’s) support, health and education20. Thus it follows that taking into account the interests of a minor, some of the terms and conditions of the audition contract are not in consonance with the inclination of the Indian legal regime towards minor.  T&Cs, Restraining Legal Action
 The other terms and conditions21 of Entertainment Ke Liye Aur Bhi Kuch Karega are one step ahead. They even bar a legal action and oust the jurisdiction of Courts. Clause 15 of the terms and conditions provide that participants shall also not file in person or through any family member and or any third party any applications, criminal and or civil proceedings in any Courts or forum in India against MSM to claim any damages or reliefs. This is a clause in restraint of legal proceedings and hence void under Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which is as below :  “Section 28: Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings void.- Every agreement,  by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights; or which extingushes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto from any liability, under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified period so as to restrict any party from enforcing his rights, is void to that extent.” Justice Garth, C.J., Calcutta High Court, has held in a leading case22 that this section is applicable to those agreement which wholly or partially prohibit the parties to the contract from having recourse to the Court for the enforcement of their rights. Thus the terms and conditions of the auditions of reality shows appear to be against the law of contract and hence void. In the eyes of law they do not create any binding obligations on the parties, especially the participants.  Violation of (Human) Rights of Child
 Besides the questionable audition contract the Reality shows suffer from some more legal flaws and that is rampant violation of the human rights of children. In the name of talent or parents’ wish when a child enters into a world of glamour, he has to face a strange group of persons for whom he is nothing but a means to earn money. In such a bizarre his emotions, care and of course human rights are left right at the doors of the content-producers. The below-mentioned are few examples of the costs a child has to bear while appearing for audition or participating in a reality TV show:  Right to Health
 According to WHO, health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity24. If health embraces so many things, it is abundantly clear that while being engaged with the Reality TV shows the health of a child participant is certainly at risk. As regards his physical health, the T&Cs of, for example, Dance India Dance- Lil Masters25 say that for auditions the guardian shall bring one water bottle, lunch and medicines, if needed, whereas in reality a child-participant may have to wait for hours for few minutes’ performance. If any injury is caused to the child during performance, of course the organisers do not accept any responsibility, as discussed earlier. It upsets even more when a child performs a risky or dangerous task in the show. In dancing or singing competitions children have to put on heavy make-up in the name of make-over which may be harmful to their delicate skin or eyes. Thereats to their mental health are also not a few. During training a child may suffer from separation anxiety and mental stress; and if he fails to compete with other participants or is eliminated in an ‘elimination round’ he may go into depression. The NCPCR Guidelines26 contain an incident of a young girl-participant, who when rebuked by the Judges in a dance competition, went into depression and had to be hospitalised.  About his social well-being also it is germane to discuss because a child who has performed in a TV show and exposed to media remains no more an ordinary child. He receives exceptional treatment, be it at school, home or elsewhere which in turn may fill him with arrogance. His tender age is unable to handle the sudden popularity and it becomes tough for him to adjust in the society.  Right to Education
 The right to education has not been confined to be merely a human right; it is also a fundamental and a legal right in India. It is but natural, when a child has to appear for auditions he would practice harder for many days or months forgetting everything. He has to miss his classes at school, a very essential part of childhood to which he must be the most regular. His parents also make it easier by supporting him and they are even ready to carry books to studios; as if it were the only task he was born for. As only a few children become successful and opt for their talent as their career, the short and tantalizing career which appears to be alluring at the outset, as it may bring unpredicted money and fame, derpives a child of his basic education which would help him build up foundation of his career. With the enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 the issue becomes more arguable as section 3(1) of the Act provides that every child of the age of six to fourteen years shall have a right to free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school till completion of elementary education. Therefore participation in the Reality TV and the right to compulsory education are antago-nists.28  Right against Economic Exploitation
 Article 32 of the CRC covers a wider scope in this connection and recognises the right against exploitation in these terms: “States Parties recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education, or to be harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development.” This comprehensive right is strong enough to voice against commoditised use of children or whatever happens with a child while appearing in audition, performing in a Reality TV show or unwillingly acting in an advertisement whenever asked by the content-producers.  Right to Care
A child is a learner unaware of risks and harms and therefore he needs care and protection. To grow and develop in health a child is entitled to special care and for the full and harmonious development of his personality, he needs love and understanding31. Can it be expected from those who have announced heartless T&Cs for participation in audition or show, or when a child is among those elders who would not miss a single chance to use him so as to increase the TRP of the show, for example asking a participant to narrate his family background or any sad part of his life which inspired him? After all a child can be taken care of only by unselfish person(s) who a show organiser can never be. Â Right against Exposure to Indecency
 A child is too sensitive to be exposed to indecency. However, in some Reality TV shows especially dance competitions, sometimes children have to wear vulgar dresses and give lewd expressions to a male co-dancer while dancing on an ‘item number’; this is extremely disgusting. A child should always be kept away from such objectionable things because this age establishes the foundation of his entire life. In 2010, a controversy arose against a Telugu dance show Aata in which small girls have to dance with elder men touching each other and suggesting sensuous gestures. In spite of ban declared by the Andhra Padesh Human Rights Commission, the show continued as the High Court passed stay order against the ban. Unfortunately parents also supported the show by filing counter petitions however; the State must discharge its responsibility to protect children’s human rights. The author clarifies that this right may not form part of any enumeration in human rights documents but there is no need to either, as it is implicit, natural and inherent in a child.  Right against Maltreatment
 In Reality TV shows many times child participants are poorly rebuked or commented upon by trainers and Judges which may have serious effects on their psychology. Such treatment with the naive children is not conceivable. Even if a child commits some mistake they have to be ignored or explained delicately.  Right to Engage in Play and Recreational Activities
 During the tender age children are entitled to spend time in learning, playing and recreational activities. They must not be thrown out before selfish people willing to derive benefits out of them.  Indian Legal Regime With Respect to Child Rights
 The Union Legislature and the Executive have not kept mum on the issue of protection of rights of children; it has, time and again, enacted laws in this connection, sometimes voluntarily and else being a signatory to certain international convention. However there is lack of a piece of legislation which would directly and vehemently smash the problem in question. The inadequate and dispersed guidelines and laws and their relevant provisions are mentioned below :  NCPCR Guidelines to Regulate Child Participation in TV Serials, Reality Shows and Advertisements, 2010-2011
 The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) was established in the year 2007 under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. It emphasizes the principle of universality and inviolability of child rights and recognizes the tone of urgency in all the child related policies of the country34. The guidelines issued by the Commission are extensive and cover almost every aspect relating to the issue. According to clause 12 the guidelines are applicable on reality shows as well. Clause 12.1 identifies child as any person between the age group of 0-18 years. Under clause 12.2 the Commission upholds the superlative norm of ‘best interest of child’35. The sublime guidelines pertinent to the problem are enumerated below:  14-Production units must have a ‘child protection policy’.  15.1-No child should be cast in a role or situation that is inappropriate to the child or that may distress or put the child in embarrassing situations. Consideration has to be given to the child’s age, maturity, emotional or psychological development and sensitivity.  15.8-The reality shows should not be competition based. No child should be exposed to ridicule, insult or discouragement, harsh comments or any behaviour that could affect his or her emotional health.  15.9-The remarks by the Judges on reality shows or talent hunt shows should be encouraging. A child’s sensitivity should be borne in mind while evaluating his or her performance in reality shows.  15.10-It should be endured that the children are not caused anxiety or distress by their involvement in such programmes or by their broadcast.  15.11-The nature of the programme should be made clear in writing. Copy of Bond, agreement or contract between Film Producer or Television Serial Producer or Reality Show Producer and child should be mandatory.”  This guideline in particular seems to have been made in haste as there cannot be any contract with a child and even if it is intended to be made by his or her parents they cannot sign an agreement which involves likelihood of danger to the child, as elaborated earlier.  “16.2-...The participation of children in recorded or live entertainment programmes may be done preferably on holidays so that the child does not miss school. This principle is relevant in the context of the Right to Education Act, recently enacted by the Government.  16.3-A child shall only participate in one shift per day, with a break every hour.  18.11-All reality shows involving children should employ a child psychologist or counselor who shall be available on the sets through the course of the entire show.  19.2-A parent or guardian gives consent to his or her child participating within the restrictions set by the Right to Education Act.”  The list also includes guidelines relating to the presence of parents on the sets, safety, rest, behaviour with child participants, toilets for them and mode of payment etc. However these guidelines carry no binding force as they are not law36 and therefore they are never taken note of.  Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005
 The Act aims at establishing a National Commission and State Commissions for protection of child rights37. For the term ‘child rights’ the Act provides for an inclusive definition38 and says child rights includes children’s rights adopted under the CRC. The commission can inquire into the complaints of violation of child rights under Section 13(j) however even after a positive finding its powers under Section 15 are regrettably confined to recommending to concerned Government the initiation of proceedings. Section 25 provides for Children’s Court and says that a State Goverment may specify at least Court in the State or specify, for each district, the Court of Session to be a Children’s Court for the purpose of speedy trial of offences against children or of violation of child rights39.   Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009- Section 3
 The Act confers that every child of the age of six to fourteen years shall have a right to free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school till completion of elementary education.  The Constitution of India
 The fundamental rights connected to the subject include the right to education (Article 21A) and the right against exploitation (Articles 23 and 24). Furthermore the Directive Principles of State Policy contain few special values to be inculcated in statutes such as under clauses?(e) and (f) of Article 39, respectively, the State shall direct its policy towards securing that the tender age of children is not abused and that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment. Under Article 45 the State shall endeavour to provide, within a period of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years. In this manner the supreme law of the land upholds and defends the rights of child.  Among the above-discussed pieces of various legislations or else, none seeks to confront the issue vehemently and unswervingly but they ignite an agitation. In addition to the above, statutes like the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 and Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 may also be of some relevance. In the context of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and the children performing in Reality TV shows it is generally argued that it is ‘child work’ as contrast to ‘child labour’ but this distinction seems to have been developed merely to shun legal obligations because treating participation in such shows as child labour is definitely going to discourage parents and the show organisers, and save the childhood which, at the end of the day, should be the sole intent and the objective sought to be achieved.  Corporate Responsibilities with Regard to Human Rights (of children)
 In the year 2003 the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights came up with the Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Others Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights40, for implementation of general and specific obligations after having consulted with the stakeholders. The connection of the Norms with the problem in the paper is quite obvious; the show organisers are companies and business entities, under the Norms they fall within the definition of the term ‘Other Business Enterprises’41 and the rights of child they violate are also sought to be protected42 by the Norms. Article 1 of the Norms puts obligation to promote, secure the fulfillment of, respect, ensure respect of and protect human rights recognized in international as well as national law, including the rights and interests of indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups. Para (b) of the Commentary43 on Article 1 of the Norms interprets it as responsibility to use due diligence in ensuring that their activities do not contribute directly or indirectly to human abuses, and that they do not directly or indirectly benefit from abuses of which they were aware or ought to have been aware. At this juncture, peeping into the reality of the Reality TV shows it is the most pertinent to quote Prof. Baxi:  “However, starvation wages, salve-like labour practices, unconscionable forms of child labour, sexual harassment at workplace, wanton disregard for worker safety and occupational health, thoroughgoing creation of environmental hazards, rape, sex tourism, tying young children to camels in camel races as a form of commercially sponsored sport, child conscription for purposes of insurgent action, clearly constitute human abuses, even when existing human rights norms and standards may not allow description of these practices as human rights abuses.”44  Whichever way it may be treated, human rights abuse or human abuse but the show producers are under obligations, therefore, to respect and protect the human rights of the child participants and not to directly or indirectly benefit45 from abuses of which they were aware or ought to have been aware. Besides the Norms issued by the Sub-Commission, the UNICEF has also declared ‘Children’s Rights and Business Principles”46. Germane to the discussion, the first principle is that all business should meet their responsibility to respect children’s rights and commit to supporting the human rights of children and fourth principle is to ensure the protection and safety of children in all business activities and facilities. The NCPCR Guidelines47 echoes the same voice. Article 30 of the UDHR is yet another example of corporate human rights responsibility:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Roger Scruton, 1944, in The Times, May 1, 1999, Oxford Dictionary of Quotations and Provierbs 47 (OUP, New Delhi, 2007).
2. Including walking on glass, crossing moving swords, eating fire etc.
3. Reality TV shows present unscripted acts like dance, singing, adventures etc. in which the performers are not professional actors.
4. For example, India’s Got Talent, Entertainment Ke Liye Kuch Bhi Karega, Dance India Dance Lil Masters, Saregama Li’l Champs, India Idol etc.
5. Such as India’s Got Talent.
6. See sec. 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. In the famous case, Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghosh, ILR (1930) 30 Cal 539 (PC), it was held that a minor’s contract is void ab intio.
7. This type of contract is known as boilerplate or standard form contract and sometimes, fine-print contract.
8. Available at: http://colors.in.com/indias-got-talent/tandc.php (Visited on Nov. 15, 2012).
9. In this TV show a participant demonstrates, besides dance and musical acts, his extraordinary skills including eating of fire, breaking of tube-lights, breaking bricks over one’s head by a hammer etc.
10. Available at: www.setindia.com/ENT/EKLKBK-S3_tnc.pdf (Visited on Nov. 15, 2012).
11. Sec. 23. “What considerations and objects are lawful and what not.- The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless....it involves or implies injury to the person or property of another.” See generally Ram Swaroop v. Bansi Mandar, ILR (1915) 42 Cal 742.
12. Supra note 8, Clause 5(b).
13. Clause 15.14, available at: http://www.videochaska.com/indian-idol/pdf/indianidol6_tnd.pdf (Visited on Nov. 27, 2012).
14. (1949) 75IA 115. This judgment overruled the judgment of Mir Sarwarjan v. Fakhruddin Mohd. Chaudhary (1912) 39 Cal 232: PC 39 IA 1.
15. The third requirement was added by Manik Chand v. Ramchandra, AIR 1981 SC 519.
16. Ragharachariar v. Srinivasa Raghava Chariar, ILR 40 Mad 308 : (AIR 1917 Mad 630).
17. Gadigeppa Bhimappa v. Balangowda Bhimangowda, AIR 1931 Bom 561.
18. Sec. 30(1), Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
19. Sec. 13, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
20. Sec. 24.
21. Ibid.
22. coringa Oil Company v. Koegler (1876) ILR 1 Cal 466, 468-469.
23. Art. 24(1), Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 (hereinafter CRC) and 12, International Convenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 (hereinafter ICESCR).
24. Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization, (Official Records of the World Health Organization, No.2, at 100), entered into force on 7th April, 1948. The definition has not been amended since 1948.
25. Available at : didlilmasters.zeetv.com/images/terms-n-conditions.pdf(Visited on Dec. 15, 2012).
26. National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights, Guidelines to Regulate Child Participation in TV Serials, Reality Shows and Advertisements, 2010-2011.
27. Art. 28, CRC, 26, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (hereinafter UDHR) and, 10 and 13 ICESCR.
28. To ensure due implementation of the Act, on April 28, 2011, a Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justice Dalveer Bhandari and A. K. Patnaik banned the employment of children in circuses on a petition filed by an NGO, Bachpan Bachao Andolan and observed that to implement the fundamental right of children under Article 21A it is imperative that the Central Government issue suitable notifications prohibiting the employment of children in circuses within two months. Looking at the intention of the Honourable Court it is argued that the participation in Reality TV shows does no less damage to the studies of the children.
29. Arts. 32, CRC and 10(3), ICESCR.
30. Art. 10, ICESCR, See also Preamble, and Principles 4 and 6, Declaration of the Rights of the Child, 1959.
31. Principles 4 and 6, Declaration of the Rights of the Child, 1959, respectively.
32. Art. 19, CRC.
33. Art. 31, CRC.
34. Available at:http://www.ncpcr.gov.in/about_ncpcr.htm (Visited on Dec. 18, 2012).
35. An identical expression of the norm can be found as ‘welfare of the minor shall be the paramount consideration’, in Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
36. The widest possible and inclusive definition of law under Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution of India also does not include  ‘guidelines’ within the definition of law; viz. “law includes any ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law.”
37. Sections 3 and 17 respectively,.
38. Sec. 2(b).
39. The Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act, 2012 also contains a provision akin thereto.
40. UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights, 26 August, 2003, E/CN,4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2.
41. Art. 21: “The phrase “other business enterprise” includes any business entity, regardless of the international or domestic nature of its activities...” Ibid.
42. Art. 23: “The phrases “human rights” and “international human rights” include civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights, as set forth in the International Bill of Human Rights and other human rights treaties....” Ibid.
43. Commentary on the Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights, 26 August, 2003, E/CN,4/Sub.2/2003/38/Rev.2.
44. Upendra Baxi, The Future of Human Rights 334-35 (OUP, New Delhi, 3rd edn.,2008).
45. Prof. Baxi observes that the Commentary seeks to impose a more stringent obligation in this connection. He emphatically highlights that, “....the second obligation tantalizingly refers to duties of abstention from direct or indirect derivation of benefit from abuses....” Ibid.
46. UNICEF, The UN Global Compact and Save the Children: The Children’s Rights and Business Principles, Mar. 12, 2012.
47. “The Child performers must be treated with respect and their rights, needs and development must be of primary consideration.” Guideline 7.
48. Baxi, supra note 44, at 297.
49. World Declaration on the Survival, Protection and Development of Children, 1990.
50. From ‘A World Fit for Us’, Message from the Children’s Forum, 5-7 May, 2002, United Nations Special Session on Children.
51. WHO sets the age of adolescence to 10 years. See www.who.int/topics/adolescent_health/en/.

 “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”  Prof. Baxi maintains that this principle is the most overarching principle of human rights responsibility of corporations. He further establishes that they have a duty, among others, to so behave and conduct themselves as not engage in the destruction of the rights and freedoms thus enshrined.48 Thus it follows that business entities must not forget their obligation to safeguard the human rights of children too (Emphasis supplied).  Conclusion and Suggestions
 The entire gamut of objectionable state and the consequences that ensue are not agreeable in a healthy society. It is true that not only content producers but also parents are at fault in this case as they agree to allow their child to perform in the show, either for alluring short-lasting fame or for making quick-money and finally no one but the child suffers. It is surprising and unbelievable to know that parents themselves sign the contract on behalf of their child to perform in a Reality TV show, be it of dancing, singing or performing risk tasks; at the cost of his studies, mental agony, mental as well as physical health and the ill-treatment he receives there. As agreed upon in the World Summit on Children, 199049: “The Childen of the world are innocent, vulnerable and dependent. They are curious, active and full of hope”. The children must be protected not only because they are naive but also because they have ample potentials in themselves for growth, innovation, creativity, dynamism etc.; they are the future of the country.  “We are not the sources of problems; we are the resources that are needed to solve them. We are not expenses; we are investments. We are not just young people; we are people and citizens of this world”50.  The responsibility, in this case, is not only on the State to enact a stringent legislation but also of the corporate houses not to exploit and misuse the talents of children by showcasing a fascinating dream-world merely to make money. The concluding remark on this issue rest at pleading for an immediate legislation only, because whatever is happening in the name of Reality TV show is untenable, both morally as well as legally. A fresh law must be passed on this issue or the NCPCR guidelines which are adequate in themselves to a great extent need to be transformed into law to curb the gross abuse and injustice. The Guidelines cover nearly every aspect relating to child participants in the Reality TV shows including their safety, physical and mental health, education, care etc., as mentioned earlier. However the Guidelines do not set any age limit a child below which cannot participate. It is argued that a child below the age of ten years should not be allowed to participate in the shows as this is the age of adolescence.51”

Author Name: Dr. Kailash Jeenger