The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, 5 April, set aside the telecast ban imposed by the Union Government on Malayalam news channel MediaOne.
Independent press is crucial for responsible functioning of the society. Press has the duty to speak truth to power. Critical views of MediaOne cannot be termed anti-establishment and use of this term means that press must support the establishment," the Court said.
How the ban started: The Union Government had in January last year, asked the channel to stop operating after it denied security clearance to them during the license renewal process.
The government order had cited ‘unimaginable consequences on national security,’ and had refused to reveal why security clearance was denied. During the hearing, the centre had submitted these reasons to the top court in a 'sealed cover.'
After this became a major point of contention over the hearing, the Supreme Court, in its verdict, was expected to answer if the government can refuse revealing reasons for the ban on the channel due to ‘national security.’
SC rejects national security concerns: "We hold national security claims cannot be made on the basis of thin air. It is seen that none of the material is against national security or threatens public order," the top court said in its order on Wednesday.
"National security is being used to deny citizen their rights which cannot be permitted under law."Supreme Court
More details? The case came to the top court after the media house challenged the Union government's ban at the Kerala High Court and the court upheld the ban.
Following this, the High Court's decision was challenged at the top court.
A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli had reserved its verdict on 3 November after a three-day hearing.
"Some of the reports cited by IB are that minorities favoring reports were telecast, there was critique of UAPA, NRC, CAA and criticism of judiciary and executive... such reports are just inference of what is available in the public domain. There was nothing to show terrorist links," the judgment added.
A Brief Timeline of Events
2011: MediaOne TV, a Malayalam news channel operated by an Islamic Organisation the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind first receives its license from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B Ministry)
2013: The media channel starts operating
January 2022: The I&B Ministry refuses to renew its transmission license and issues an order asking the company to halt its operations
(Important to note here, is that the The I&B Ministry, while doing so, said that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had denied security clearance to the channel. The ministry further amplified the MHA’s considerations of ‘national security’ and public order.)
31 January 2022: MediaOne goes off air
February 2022: The media outlet challenges the ban before the Kerala High Court, wherein the central government produces documents in a sealed cover before the court to defend the ban. These documents are however, not shown to mediaone.
8 Feb 2022: The Kerala High Court, relying on these documents, upholds the ban while concurring that the ban was necessary on grounds of national security
March 2022: The case goes to the Supreme Court, after MediaOne TV challenegs the lower court’s decision there
10 March 2022: Senior Advocate Mukul Rohtagi, appearing for the media house, highlights that the ban violates the channel’s Constitutional Right To Freedom of the Press under Article 19. He also points towards the hundreds of employees who would lose their jobs if the ban continued
15 March 2022: The Supreme Court in an interim order, stays the government’s ban on the TV channel and permits operations until the court reaches a final verdict
3 November 2022: After 3 days of hearing, a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli reserve their verdict in the case
What Had The News Channel Argued In Court?
Security Clearance Not Required At Renewal Stage
Senior Supreme Court Advocate Dushyant Dave, representing the channel, submitted over the course of the hearing that the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 which also makes provision for renewal of licenses, does not explicitly mention the requirement of any security clearance from the Ministry of Home Affairs at the renewal stage.
"Requirement for security clearance is only at the threshold stage of applying for the channel, not renewal," Dave said.
‘Sealed Cover Creates A Bias In The Minds Of The Judges’
Not disclosing information about why their renewal license was cancelled, to the other side, violates the principle of natural justice, Dave argued in court.
According to the principle of natural justice, it is mandatory for both sides to have access to information that the other side is relying on, Supreme Court Advocate Paras Nath Singh had explained to The Quint.
What The Govt Had Said In Court
Security Clearance Not a Vested Right
On the third day of the hearing, Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj had told the top court that the petitioners cannot claim that security clearance is their right at the stage of renewal.
“Under the policy different tests have to be gone through at different stages. The media house may have legitimate expectations, but they do not get any vested right (to get security clearance’), the state said.
‘If There Is Threat To National Security, Principles Of Natural Justice May Be Subverted’
Responding to Dave’s arguments on natural justice the ASG had said that there were certain cases where principles of natural justice could be “subverted.”
He referred to ExArmy men's Protection Services Private Limited v. Union of lndia And Others (2014) wherein the Apex Court had observed that 'if there are justifiable facts and there is threat to national security, then, nobody, let alone the court, can insist on the compliance of principles of natural justice as a pre-condition for taking any action resulting even in adverse civil consequences.'
In the said judgment, the Court had also noted that what is in the interest of national security is not a question of law, but a matter of policy.
Thus, he argued that it is not for the Court but for the executive to decide whether something is in the interest of national security.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)