“No Expectation That The Press Must Support The Establishment”- SC Holds Critical Views On Govt Policies Cannot Be Termed Anti-Establishment
A Supreme Court Bench of Chief Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli has stressed that critical views on government policies cannot be termed anti-establishment.
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, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had refused to renew the Malayalam news channel MediaOne’s broadcast license on the ground that the security clearance had not been given by the Ministry of Home Affairs. It was alleged that MediaOne was espousing its anti-establishment stance on various issues “including UAPA, Armed Forces (Special Power) Act, developmental projects of the Government, encounter killings, Citizenship (Amendment) Act, CAA/NPR/NRC”. It was also alleged that JEI-H and its sympathizers constituted their main source of income.
In that context, the Supreme Court observed that “The critical views of the Channel, Media-One on policies of the government cannot be termed, ‘anti-establishment’. The use of such a terminology in itself, represents an expectation that the press must support the establishment. The action of the MIB by denying a security clearance to a media channel on the basis of the views which the channel is constitutionally entitled to hold produces a chilling effect on free speech, and in particular on press freedom. Criticism of governmental policy can by no stretch of imagination be brought withing the fold of any of the grounds stipulated in Article 19(2).”
Further, the Court noted that JEI-H is no longer a banned organization and, in that context, observed that “when JEI-H is not a banned organisation, it would be rather precarious for the State to contend that the links with the organisation would affect the sovereignty and integrity of the nation, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, or public order.”
It was further observed that “there is no evidence on record to link them to JEI-H. Thus, the allegation that MBL is linked to JEI-H is fallacious, firstly, because JEI-H is not a banned organisation and there is no material to conclude that the investment by JEI-H sympathizers would affect India’s security, and secondly, even if it is accepted that the investment by JEI-H sympathizers would affect the security of the State, there is no material to prove that the shareholders are sympathizers of JEI-H.”
Subsequently, it was held that the purpose of denying security clearance did not have a legitimate goal or a proper purpose.
In the matter, the Court while lifting the ban on the news channel also observed that the constitutional principle of procedural guarantees cannot be turned into dead letter. (Read Report)
While, the Court also condemned the practice of sealed covers and held that the sealed cover procedure restricts the core of the principles of natural justice, i.e., the right to a fair and reasonable proceeding. (Read Report)
The Court also stressed the importance of an independent press for the functioning of a democratic republic and held that the mere involvement of issues concerning national security would not preclude the state’s duty to act fairly. (Read Report)
Cause Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
