Summary:
"Referring to the alleged pornographic content in the PETA website, the judges said: "On a perusal, we find nothing of this sort. "The PIL said the PETA website had been indulging "sexist advertisements" and that it had hosted a "XXX porn site as a marketing endeavor. In any case, nothing compels the petitioner to necessarily visit the website of PETA and then claim that he is provoked by its content." It would be the prerogative of the executive, if any law is violated, to take action against any such organisation. In our view, this is contemptuous of the Supreme Court, as it is the prerogative of the court whether to entertain or not to entertain a petition..