The Supreme Court on Monday sought the Centre’s response on a petition seeking clarity on the Security Clearance Policy. A petition filed by BJP Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy contended that there was no clear-cut security clearance policy for companies and individuals.
He described the present method of granting security clearances as “inadequate, a vacuum and non-uniform.” The large chinks in the security armour, Dr. Swamy claimed, allowed easy entry to potent threats to the national security.
Sun Group issue
On this, the plea heavily refers to how the Sun Group was allowed to participate by the Madras and Delhi High Courts in the e-auction process of Private FM Radio Channels (Phase-III) and airwaves held by the government. The high courts’ decisions had helped the group overcome the Ministry of Home Affairs’ denial of security clearance to them in July 2015 on the ground that both Kalanidhi Maran and Dayanidhi Maran, former Telecommunications Minister, were accused in the “Aircel Maxis scam case.” The petition said the Marans “controlled” the group.
‘Divergent opinions’
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur issued notice on the petition which highlighted the Sun Group’s case to show that the country could not afford to have such “divergent opinions” on national security issues, especially when it concerns matters “vital to economic security and integrity.”
Highlighting that “control of radio and airwaves and the electronic media are extremely important aspect of national security,” Dr. Swamy contended that a hazy security clearance policy had allowed the Marans to participate in the FM auction process.
The petition said the Marans were on trial in the Aircel Maxis case for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act for “defrauding the public exchequer.” The high courts had refused to accept these as reasons enough to confirm the Home Ministry’s decision to refuse the Sun Group security clearance.
The parameters
Dr. Swamy further contended that the high courts themselves had delivered conflicting opinions on the parameters to be considered while deciding to grant security clearance.
In the Sun Group case, while the Madras High Court said conviction was necessary to deny security clearance, and the Delhi High Court held that security clearance could be denied to a company only if the accused shareholder owned over 51 per cent stake, the Bombay High Court, while deciding another case, said it was the sole discretion of the government to deny security clearance to a company or individual.
The petition said the apex court should decide the parameters for once and for all.
