The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the Central government’s decision to revoke the security clearance of Kerala-based news and current affairs TV channel Media One “on the basis of intelligence inputs which are sensitive and secretive in nature”.
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, heading a three-judge Bench, said the government’s decision had effectively shut down the business of media house Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited, which runs Media One in the name of “national security and public order” without fully disclosing the specific reasons for revoking their security clearance.
The Bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath, said the company was “surely entitled” to know the “particulars” of the ban.
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave and advocate Haris Beeran, representing the company, said if the court allowed this to happen “no media or publication is safe. Everybody can be shut down anytime”.
After taking a 10-minute break to peruse the contents of the government files based on which the media company’s security clearance was not renewed in an order on January 31, 2022, the court observed that “at the present stage, we are of the view that a case for interim relief has been made out in behalf of the petitioners [media house] with due regards to the contents of the files perused by the court”.
“We accordingly direct that, pending further orders, the order of the Union government of January 31, 2022 revoking security clearance to Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited shall remain stayed,” the court directed.
The Bench directed that the channel would continue operations as before January 31.
‘File counter affidavit before March 26’
The court asked the Centre to file its counter affidavit before March 26. The Bench said the issue whether the internal files of the government ought to be shared with the company to pursue its challenge against the ban would be “expressly kept open to be resolved”.
The apex court referred to a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court which, while confirming an earlier Single Judge order upholding the government ban, had noted that the government files did not dwell on the “impact, gravity and depth” of revoking the licence. The High Court had said the files did not contain “too many details”.
“What you have merely said in the High Court is that the Ministry of Home Affairs has denied security clearance based on intelligence inputs which are sensitive and secretive in nature... Now their business is shut down. Surely, they are entitled to the particulars. Otherwise, how do they defend themselves? Disclose your files to them... What is the difficulty in disclosing files? It is after all a licence to run a TV channel... Disclose the files,” Justice Chandrachud addressed Additional Solicitor Generals S.V. Raju and K.M. Nataraj, for the government.
‘385 journalists without job’
Mr. Dave said “heavens are not going to fall” if the channel was allowed to broadcast news and current affairs. “I am not going to bring the government down... How can a democratically elected government stand before a court and plead ‘national security’. Over 385 journalists are without a job. I have to pay monthly wages to the tune of ₹83 lakh and there are millions of my viewers...” he submitted.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, who was not appearing in the case but was watching the proceedings, intervened to say he was representing a media house in “identical case” regarding the non-renewal of licence of the government. “These matters have to be taken up urgently by this court,” he said.
“The Cable TV and Network Act does not give the government the power to deny me security clearance... For six weeks, I have been shut down without a reason simply because we are run by members of a minority community... What else is it?” Mr. Dave stated.
Mr. Raju denied the allegation and asked for time to file an affidavit.
Mr. Nataraj said the company had “browbeaten” the High Court judge, who upheld the government ban, in a YouTube video.
Mr. Dave said the video had nothing to do with the company and denied the charge.
“Ultimately, criticism of an order or judgment is part of a citizen’s right so long as they are not casting aspersions on the motives of the judge,” Justice Chandrachud observed.
Renewal of licence
Mr. Raju argued that the stay of the January 31 ban does not automatically entail renewal of the licence.
Mr. Dave said the company had applied for renewal of its licence in May 2021. It was due to expire in September the same year. The government’s ban came in January 2022, two months after the expiry of the licence.
“So, you allowed them to operate after September 2021, did you not,” Justice Chandrachud asked the government.
