“Constitutional Principle Of Procedural Guarantees Cannot Be Turned Into Dead Letter”- SC While Lifting Ban On MediaOne [Read Judgment]

A Supreme Court Bench of Chief Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli has ruled against the telecast ban imposed on the Malayalam news channel MediaOne.

Senior Counsel Dushyant Dave, Senior Counsel Huzefa A Ahmadi, and Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the appellants. ASG KM Nataraj appeared for the respondents.

In this case, a special leave petition was filed by Madhyam Broadcasting Limited, which is the company that runs the Malayalam News Channel MediaOne. An order passed by the Kerala High Court which upheld the decision of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to not renew the broadcast licence of the channel was upheld. The reasoning provided was that the channel did not receive the security clearance from the Ministry of Home Affairs.

The Supreme Court framed the following issues, and answered them in the following manner:

(i) Whether security clearance is one of the conditions required to be fulfilled for renewal of permission under the Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines.

Perusing the Guidelines, the Court found that security clearance from the Ministry of Home Affairs is one of the conditions that is required to be fulfilled for the renewal of permission for Uplinking and Downlinking of news channels.

(ii) Whether denying renewal of license and the course of action adopted by the Division Bench of the High Court violated the appellants' procedural guarantees under the Constitution.

The Court observed that “there is an inherent value in securing compliance with the principles of natural justice independent of the outcome of the case. Actions which violate procedural guarantees can be struck down even if non-compliance does not prejudice the outcome of the case.”

In that context, the Court observed the appellants had proved MBL’s right to a fair hearing had been infringed and that the burden was on the respondents to prove that the procedure that was followed was reasonable and in compliance with the requirements of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Relying on the judgments passed in the case of Ex-Armymen’s Protection Services and Digi Cable Network, the Court noted that the principles of natural justice may be excluded when on the facts of the case, national security concerns overweigh the duty of fairness. It was also noted that confidentiality and national security are legitimate aims for the purpose of limiting procedural guarantees.

In light of the same, the Court held that the State was unable to prove that the concerns of confidentiality and national security arose in the present case. In that context, it was observed that “A blanket immunity from disclosure of all investigative reports cannot be granted”.

Conclusively, the Court took the considered view that “the dilution of procedural guarantees while hearing the claim cannot be ignored by the Court. It is only the Court and the party seeking non-disclosure of the material who are privy to the public interest immunity proceedings. The court has a duty to consider factors such as the relevance of the material to the case of the applicant while undertaking the proportionality standard to test the public interest immunity claim. However, the applicant who is unrepresented in the proceedings would be effectively impaired. While there may be material on serious concerns of national security which cannot be disclosed; the constitutional principle of procedural guarantees is equally important and it cannot be turned into a dead letter. As the highest constitutional court, it is our responsibility to balance these two considerations when they are in conflict.”

(iii) Whether the order denying renewal of license is an arbitrary restriction on MBL’s right to the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

In response, the Court observed that “The challenge to the order of MIB is allowed on substantive grounds. The non-renewal of permission to operate a media channel is a restriction on the freedom of the press which can only be reasonably restricted on the grounds stipulated in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.”

It was found that the reasons for denying security clearance to MBL were not legitimate purposes for the restriction of the right of freedom of speech protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Subsequently, appeals were allowed. The MIB was directed to issue renewal permissions.

Cause Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment