| CITATION | 2023 SCC OnLine SC 366 |
| DATE OF JUDGEMENT | 5 April 2023 |
| COURT | Supreme Court of India |
| APPELLANT | Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited |
| RESPONDENT | Union of India and Ors. |
| BENCH | Dr.DY Chandrachud, CJ and Hima Kohli. |
INTRODUCTION
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting denied the appellants clearance for security grounds in the Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India and Ors. case. It was argued that this resulted in a violation of a basic right, namely the right to freedom of the press. It was regarded as one of the significant rulings in the most recent instances. The reasons for the refusal were stated in the sealed cover and were only provided to the court, which made it seem to have a chilling impact on press freedom. The appellants argued that it violated both Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and the right to a fair trial.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Established in accordance with the Companies Act is M/s. Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited. It is the proprietor of the television network “Media One,” which airs news and current affairs programming. The first respondent, the Union of India, had given M/s. Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited permission to transmit TV shows both uplink and downlink. According to communications dated September 30, 2011, July 11, 2019, and September 30, 2011, this permission was good until September 29, 2021. The permission granted to the Managing Director of M/s. Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited, situated in Calicut, Kerala, through Ext. P1 permits the uplinking of news and current events from India via “Media One” for a period of ten years. The permission given to the same firm for the five-year downlinking of news and current affairs through “Media One” in India is found in Ext. P1(a). Ext. P1(b) extends the authorization for downlinking given to M/s. Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited by five years, from September 30, 2016, to September 29, 2021, so as to coincide with the coterminous time of the authorization for uplinking.
Since these licences were scheduled to expire on September 29, 2021, it appears that M/s. Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited submitted an application on May 3, 2021, seeking a 10-year renewal of both uplinking and downlinking permissions. The application was submitted, but it wasn’t examined before the permissions expired. However, it appears that the appealing company was permitted to carry on with its business. On January 5, 2022, M/s. Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited received a show cause notice (Ext. P1) from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. The warning noted that although the business had submitted an application for renewal on May 3, 2021, the Ministry of Home Affairs had previously rejected the company’s requests for security clearance, and that this rejection might be taken into account in the current case as well.
Regardless, the letter said that M/s. Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited was no longer eligible to renew authorization for uplinking and downlinking TV channels since the security clearance had been rejected. As a result, it was asked of M/s. Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited to justify the continued validity of the uplinking and downlinking approvals that had been given.
M/s. Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited presented their case by submitting a response, Ext. P2, dated January 18, 2022. This reply explained the factual background and contested the allegations, particularly highlighting that the assertions against ‘Media One’ TV Channel regarding past denial of security clearance were inaccurate. Furthermore, it was claimed that the show cause notice itself was unclear because it did not state why the “Media One” TV station would not be granted security clearance. Other arguments were presented in opposition to the claims stated in the show cause notice.
Additionally, the answer argued that the respondent’s acts violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Despite this, it was asserted that the order dated January 31, 2022, was issued without considering any of the points raised in the reply. Dissatisfied with this decision, writ petitions were subsequently filed.
In response to the accusations and claims stated in the writ suit, the Union of India and the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi—identified as respondent Nos. 1 and 2—have jointly issued a statement. They emphasised that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting modified the 2005 policy guidelines to take into account the quickly changing electronic media environment. As a result, on December 5, 2011, consolidated guidelines that replaced all prior recommendations (Annexures R1(a) and R1(b)) were formally announced. Although licences for downlinking and uplinking to M/s. Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited through the “Media One” TV channel were acknowledged, it was revealed that the Ministry of Home Affairs had rejected security clearance for both applications on the basis of an Office Memorandum dated January 27, 2016. This included the approval of two new TV stations, Media One Life and Media One Global, as well as the nomination of two directors, Rahmathunnissa Abdul Razack and Musliyarakath Mehaboob, to the board of directors.
The firm responded to the show cause notice by stating that they were not aware of the reasons for the renewal since the criteria had changed and they had not been given the opportunity to be heard when the clearance was being rejected.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether there is a national security threat with regard to the renewal?
- Whether the denial of renewal violated the fundamental rights of the Constitution?
CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANTS
The policy guidelines for uplinking television channels from India and the rules for downlinking television channels, both dated December 5, 2011, provide precise processes that control the renewal of current licences. The Senior Counsel, who made this argument, said that clause 10 of the policy guidelines for uplinking outlines precise requirements for authorization renewal. Despite these clear guidelines established by the government for the renewal process, the Union Government, as contended by the Senior Counsel, has not adhered to these stipulated procedures.
The appellant contends that the Union Government processed their application in violation of the explicit renewal processes specified in clauses 10 and 9 of the policy guidelines for uplinking and downlinking, respectively. They assert that no action was warranted against the company for violating the granted permission. The Union Government, in an attempt to deny permission, cited national security concerns. However, neither the show cause notice nor the order specified any threat to national security due to the company’s channel operations.
The Union Government is not authorised to restrict the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution by using the word “national security.”
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
It is argued that in cases involving significant security concerns, there is no obligation to explicitly mention these aspects in either the show cause notice or the contested order. On the basis of natural justice, arbitrariness, freedom of speech and expression, and life and liberty, more reasons are made to support the appellant company’s inability to contest the show cause notice and the order. This is particularly emphasised when the matter involves security considerations for the country.
The authority has the inherent right to review the permissions procedure when renewing permission or registration, and the grounds made by the appellants are not persuasive.
It is emphasised that according to the guidelines, any security clearance issue must be considered during the renewal process. The argument further asserts that the principles of natural justice cannot be invoked in favour of the appellants when the Ministry of Home Affairs reveals adverse situations pertaining to the denial of security clearance for the appellant company.
Furthermore, the show cause notice need not include an explanation when it pertains to national security. The Government may decline to extend authorization when materials raise questions about the security of the State, but it need not give a detailed explanation of why.
JUDGEMENT
The well-functioning of the nation relies heavily on the critical elements of state security and public order. Consequently, priority should be given to the interests of the citizens of the country over other considerations.
The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that there was no justifiable reason for refusing a security clearance. It concluded that the denial of licence to continue running a media channel is a restriction on press freedom, which is only legally allowable under the conditions outlined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
ANALYSIS
The respondents are of the opinion that the renewal of licence cannot be considered because there is a threat to national security. But the reasons for the denial of the renewal are not mentioned and the opportunity of hearing was denied as well. The principles of natural justice as well as the fundamental rights with respect to the freedom of press are being violated.
The supreme court held that the government should proceed to issue the renewal proceedings within four weeks and all the authorities should be obligated to the given judgement.
CONCLUSION
The Madhyama Broadcasting Limited was denied the right to be heard when the reasons for the renewal were not disclosed and denied the renewal. This case resulted in the Supreme Court establishing a procedure for public interest immunity proceedings. The court expressed the view that this approach is a superior alternative to the sealed cover procedure, as it ensures a fairer and more transparent process.
It stated that the authorities are still required to give the reasoning materials for these types of cases and the materials which they considered and applied, even though they are not to be disclosed in the reasoning order. So, this is considered as the landmark judgement for establishing the proceedings to similar cases.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
