Allegations Against MediaOne Vague, Supreme Court Says After Seeing MHA Files; Reserves Judgment [Read Full Courtroom Exchange]

The Supreme Court, on Thursday, reserved judgment in the pleas filed by Malayalam news channel Media One, its Chief Editor, Kerala Union of Working Journalists assailing the judgment of the Kerala High Court, whereby the telecast ban imposed on the channel by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting was upheld. The Ministry had decided against renewing the broadcasting license of the news channel citing denial of security clearance by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs. On 15.03.2022, after examining the files produced by MHA raising security concerns, the Apex Court had passed an interim order and stayed the telecast ban imposed by the Union Government. Thus, the channel had been allowed to operate as it used to, before the Centre's decision. Now, after hearing the Counsels for the concerned parties for three consecutive days, a Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli has reserved judgment in the matter. No requirement Of Security Clearance At The Time Of Renewal Of Uplinking Permission: Sr. Adv. Dushyant DaveFrom the petitioner's side, Senior Advocate, Mr. Dushyant Dave representing the channel management Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd primarily argued that at the time of renewal of uplinking permission there is no requirement for security clearance. In the present case, some documents had been handed over to the Kerala High Court by the Union Government in a sealed cover citing security measures. Though reliance was placed on these documents in reaching the conclusion and upholding the ban, the other side (Media One) did not get an opportunity to have a look at them. In regard, he highlighted the adverse effects of documents submitted in sealed covers and beseeched the Bench to settle the issue of the 'sealed cover business' once and for all. State's Claim Of Breach Of National Security Is Not Behind The Pale Of Judicial Review: Sr. Adv. Huzefa AhmadiSenior Advocate, Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing on behalf of the Chief Editor of Media One, Pramod Raman contended that the Union Government had gotten the benefit of the argument that once the State cites breach of national security and public order then their claim is to be accepted without any judicial scrutiny. Evasive Phrases Used, No Specific Ground Provided For Denial Of Renewing Permission: Sr. Adv. Huzefa AhmadiFrom the show cause notice and the order passed by the Ministry of I&B, he contended that evasive phrases were used to not provide the specific ground for denying renewal of uplinking permission to Media One. The Bench was implored to consider if the Ministry's order passes muster of the restrictions to freedom of press contemplated in Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. Mr. Ahmadi had also averred that though the High Court had upheld the telecast ban, it noted that the details in the files submitted in sealed cover were sketchy. At Least Redacted Copy Of Files Submitted In Sealed Cover Ought To Have Been Provided To Media One: Sr. Adv. Huzefa AhmadiHe emphasised that even if the State claimed there was sensitive information, it should have provided a redacted copy of the file to the petitioner's so that they have a clear understanding of the offence committed by them, for which the telecast ban was imposed. Mr. Ahmadi expressed concern that if the threshold applied by the High Court to accept the claims of the Union Government in the present case is accepted then any major news channel whose narrative does not align with that of the State can be banned merely by stating that they have breached 'national security' and 'public order', and there would be no requirement to prove the same. Ministry Of I&B Was Acting As A Post Office For MHA: Sr. Adv. Mukul RohatgiSenior Advocate, Mr. Rohatgi appearing on behalf of the Kerala Union of Working Journalists assailed the procedure followed by Ministry of I&B, in essence, devoid of natural justice as a 'merely formality'. He submitted that the Ministry of I&B was acting as a post office for the MHA as it was merely acting as per the diktat of the MHA. Mr. Rohatgi, much like Mr. Ahmadi argued that a gist of grounds for denial of renewal ought to have been provided to the petitioners. The Phrases Used In Show Cause Notice & Order Of Ministry Of I&B Does Not Pass Muster Of Restrictions Contemplated In Article 19(2) Of The Constitution: Sr. Adv. Mukul RohatgiAccording to him, the expressions like 'sensitive in nature', 'secret in nature', 'matter of policy' used in the show cause notice and the subsequent order of the Ministry does not pass muster of Article 19(2) of the Constitution. At the end of the second day, Justice Chandrachud on behalf of the Bench had raised some doubts and sought the assistance of Additional Solicitor General, Mr. K.M. Nataraj, representing the Union Government, in that regard. Party Should Know What Is The Breach of National Security: Justice Chandrachud On ...

Allegations Against MediaOne Vague, Supreme Court Says After Seeing MHA Files; Reserves Judgment [Read Full Courtroom Exchange]

Sohini Chowdhury

To follow sealed cover procedure, State must show that there are tangible grounds to invoke national security, the Court said.

Tags