This article was written and edited by the team at Anoop & Co. – AOR Anoop Prakash Awasthi, Adv. Parthvi Ahuja and Ananya Singh.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
MediaOne TV is an Indian Malayalam-language television channel operated by Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited.The channel was licensed in September 2011 and was officially launched on 10 February 2013.
On 16 June 2012, then-Kerala Chief Minister Oommen Chandy inaugurated the foundation stone laying ceremony of MediaOne headquarters and studio complex at Velliparambu near Kozhikode, and former Union Cabinet Minister of Overseas Indian Affairs Vayalar Ravi unveiled the MediaOne logo at Kochi Le Meridian convention hall. The channel was officially launched on 10 February 2013 by former Defence Minister A. K. Antony at a gala function held at Swapna Nagari, Kozhikode.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited, owners of MediaOne TV, first experienced a dispute with regulators in 2015. At that time, Madhyamam proposed a second MediaOne channel, to be known as MediaOne Life. However, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) denied the security clearance that was necessary to start the new service. Even though the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had approved the technical aspects of its application, this was dropped in 2019 due to the MHA’s denial.
In March 2020, I&B prohibited the transmission or re-transmission of MediaOne TV, along with Asianet News TV, for 48 hours for what it called for “biased” reporting of North East Delhi riots, stating that the channel was “airing attacks on religions or communities, promoting communal attitudes” and “inciting violence against law and order maintenance and promoting anti-national attitudes”. In its ruling, I&B noted that the “channel’s reporting on Delhi violence seems to be biased as it is deliberately focusing on the vandalism of CAA supporters […] questions RSS and alleges Delhi Police inaction [… and] seems to be critical towards Delhi Police and RSS”.
On 31 January 2022, MediaOne TV ceased broadcasts at noon after the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting refused to renew the channel’s licence to operate in the wake of the MHA’s revocation of the security clearance for Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited. MediaOne TV is one of the few Indian news channels whose ownership lies with an Islamic organization.
On 8 February 2022, the Kerala High Court upheld the order passed by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to revoke the broadcasting license granted to MediaOne TV. The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Maadhyamam Broadcasting Ltd challenging the Union’s decision.
On 2 March 2022, the division bench of Kerala High Court upheld the earlier order. It noted that “there are certain serious adverse reports by the Intelligence Bureau against Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd and its managing director”, and though the files did not provide much information as to the dimensions of the issue, the bench indicated that “there are clear and significant indications impacting the public order and security of the state”. MediaOne appealed its decision to the Supreme Court of India, alleging that the guidelines for uplinking and downlinking television channels did not require MHA permission at renewal but only upon application for new service.
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and J. Hima Kohli, carefully analyzed the material and evidences on record and consequently, quashed the ban imposed by Ministry of Home Affairs.
Court on the mechanism of “Sealed Cover” – The court was of the view that completely relying on the contents of “sealed cover” presented by Additional Solicitor General negates the principles of natural justice and deprives MBL the opportunity to be fairly heard. The non-disclosure of even summary of reasons for denying security clearance does not share a rational connection with the purpose of protecting the interest of national security.
The Centre did not attempt justifying how non-disclosure will impair national security, and solely mentioning national security will not absolve the Centre from judicial scrutiny. Sealed cover protocols defy both natural justice and open justice norms. National security cannot be the bugbear that the judiciary shies away from, by virtue of its mere mentioning. Therefore, the national security cannot be claimed as a defense out of ‘thin air’.
The CJI highlighted the significance of free and independent press in democratic state and noted that it is vital for the ‘robust functioning of a democratic republic.’ It moulds and shapes the ideologies of the public. Consequently, restricting press freedom and labeling skeptical perspectives as “anti-establishment” undermines the very essence of democracy.
The bench headed by CJI established a comprehensive protocol for the judiciary to adhere to when the State vigorously tries to defend information exclusivity. The court ruled that in order to balance concerns about confidentiality with the need to maintain public confidence in the objectivity of the justice delivery process, a court should implement the proportionality test to determine interest of the public immunity assertions and assign an amicus curiae who would have possession to the confidential material.
The bench further suggested that in order to appropriately withhold information following the victory of the public interest immunity claim, the courts might elect to amend classified elements of the record and provide a narrative of its contents.
CONCLUSION
It is preposterous to reckon that any of the reasonable restrictions enumerated under Article 19(2) would apply to situation of dissent of state actions/policies. Documents should not be concealed from dissemination solely because doing so would evoke political indignation. In a democracy centered on transparent government, the right to truth cannot be curtailed out of concern for critiquing the government’s course of action.
It is rightfully observed by Venkataramiah, J. that “In today’s free world freedom of press is the heart of social and political intercourse.” The Supreme Court had time and again interpreted rights of press in a broader and liberal sense. Since the inception, the judicial stance tends to have been founded on a fair and stabilizing approach. On the one hand, it recognized the importance of the press in contemporary era and condemned any state intervention that precludes or places unreasonable restrictions on the press; on the other hand, it did not disregard country’s interests and declined to endorse any endeavor by media to shield itself from generally applicable laws.
