How Many TV Channels Shut Down In Past 3 Years For Non-Renewal Of License? Supreme Court Seeks Data From Union

The Supreme Court today (July 15) extended the interim stay on the Karnataka High Court Order restraining the Kannada news channel 'Power TV' broadcast until Monday. The Court also sought data from the Centre regarding the number of channels which were shut down for not renewing their license to operate in the last 3 years.The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the petition filed by M/s Power Smart Media Private Limited which operates the Kannada news channel. The petitioner challenged the division bench order of the Karnataka High Court which refused to interfere with the stay order passed by the single bench against the broadcast of the channel. The channel was reportedly telecasting the sex scandal allegations against JD(S) leaders Prajwal Revanna and Suraj Revanna. The restraining orders of the High Court came as a consequence of Union's show cause notice to the petitioners for operating the channel without renewal of their licence to broadcast. During the hearing, the CJI asked Additional Solicitor General (ASG ) Vikramjit Banerjee to appear for the Union as to how many channels which failed to renew their application in the last three years were ordered by the Centre to shut down operations as in the present instance. "How many other stations who have applied for licences have been directed to shut down in the meantime? Mr Banerjee you tell us if an existing station which applies for a renewal of a license, how many such cases they ask them to shut down pending the renewal?""What was the position in the last three years? Produce data before us, (1) which were the channels which applied for renewal of permission? and (2) whether they were permitted to operate pending the disposal of their application"To which the ASG agreed to provide the details but also emphasised that despite a detailed show cause notice (SCN) the petitioners have not turned up to provide justification for the alleged lapses on their part. "The detailed show cause is issued, they cannot violate all the conditions of the regulations and then claim the benefit that it's their fundamental right....they say we will not come and justify the show cause notice" It may be noted that the SCN in question was issued to the petitioners on February 9, 2024 by the Union. The order of injunction by the Single Bench of the High Court was granted on June 25 and thereafter on July 3 the impugned order by the Division Bench upheld the injunction. The order of injunction came from a writ petition filed by JD(S) Member of Legislative Council H M Ramesh Gowda and others. However, the Top Court was informed that the writ petition has been withdrawn before the High Court. Taking note of the said development, the CJI remarked that since the writ petition is withdrawn, the injunction order would no longer have an effect and any subsequent orders of the Union on the basis of the injunction order would also turn futile. However, the SCN issued by the Union should reach its logical end as a separate proceeding altogether. "What we could perhaps do is that the SCN by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting should be heard and disposed of finally. In so far as the injunction order is concerned, the injunction granted by the single judge was during the pendency of the writ petition. The writ petition has been withdrawn, therefore order of the injunction of the Single Bench will no longer survive. Any order which was issued by the Government of India on the basis of the order of the Single Judge will therefore come to an end." The CJI clarified that it would not stop the Union from continuing to address the SCN and making decisions as per the law. If the government has the authority to impose restrictions, it should use that authority independently."This will not preclude the Govt of India from deciding the SCN and proceeding in accordance with law. If you independently have the power to prohibit them, you (the Union) exercise that power." On the last hearing, the Court stayed the order of the Karnataka High Court. While staying the order, the Court orally observed that the case against the TV channel appeared to be "sheer political vendetta" and was filed with the motive of blocking the channel from airing certain allegations regarding sex scandals in the State. Asserting that the Court will protect the freedom of speech and expression, CJI Chandrachud said :"The more we hear you, the more we are convinced that it is Political Vendetta, let me be very honest. That is why we are inclined to protect the freedom of speech and expression. He (Petitioner) wanted to broadcast some allegations regarding the sex scandal in the State. The idea was to completely blank out his voice, this Court is duty-bound to allow him...this is sheer political vendetta and nothing else. Therefore this court will be failing in its duty if we don't do that(protect the rights)." The bench will hear the matter at length on Monday ....

How Many TV Channels Shut Down In Past 3 Years For Non-Renewal Of License? Supreme Court Seeks Data From Union

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags