The Supreme Court on Wednesday grilled the government about banning Media One, a Kerala-based TV channel, in the name of ‘national security’ without disclosing specific reasons.
The court said even detainees under the National Security Act (NSA) get to know the reasons for their incarceration.
“Even in the case of detentions under the NSA, in which a person can be confined on the subjective satisfaction of the authorities, the detainee has to be given the grounds of detention,” a Bench led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud addressed Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the Centre.
The Bench said in the case of Media One, the threshold of criminality had not been reached yet. “Even a chargesheet discloses the material on the basis of which an offence is registered. In this case, we are not even at the stage of chargesheet… Here you are denying security clearance,” the Bench observed.
Renewal of licence
The channel’s company, Madhyamam Broadcasting, had simply approached the government to renew its broadcast licence after a 10-year period. The Ministry of Home Affairs had in turn revoked their security clearance in January with a blank statement that it was done on the grounds of “national security and public order”.
“They [Madhyamam] must at least know and understand what was the breach of national security involved here… You may protect the sources of your information… But what was the information that led to you to deny security clearance? Suppose, you had got information that somebody was involved in an international hawala transaction or had nefarious links or ownership was in the hands of citizens of a hostile country… you have to naturally disclose that…” Justice Chandrachud addressed Mr. Nataraj.
The court said renewal of its licence was significant for the channel considering the investments made in the past 10 years, the fate of their employees, their goodwill in the market and, of course, the reputation they had built up during the decade.
The court also indicated that it was unfair to pass on material to the court in a sealed cover without giving the channel an opportunity to know the content.
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave and advocate Haris Beeran, for Madhyamam, argued that restrictions on free speech and the Press should come within the ambit of “reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.”
Mr. Dave had said the court should not allow such bans. “Otherwise, no media or publication is safe. Everybody can be shut down anytime,” he had submitted.
The government had contended that renewal of broadcast permission for a further period of 10 years required verification and clearance from the Home Ministry. It had said the renewal of permission for a TV channel was not a matter of right.
“The renewal of permission for a TV channel is not a matter of right for a company and such permission is granted only upon fulfilment of certain eligibility conditions stipulated under the uplinking and downlinking guidelines and other relevant statutory framework,” the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had said in its reply.
