NEW DELHI (TIP): The Supreme Court on Wednesday, April 5, quashed the Centre’s telecast ban on Malayalam news channel MediaOne and pulled up the Ministry of Home Affairs for raising national security claims in “thin air” without facts. Observing that the State can’t impose unreasonable restrictions on press as it would have a chilling effect on press freedom, a bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud set aside the Kerala High Court order which had upheld the Centre’s decision to ban the channel’s telecast on security grounds. The top court said critical views of the channel against government policies cannot be termed as anti-establishment as an independent press is necessary for a robust democracy. “Press has a duty to speak truth to power and present citizens with hard facts enabling them to make choices that propel democracy in the right direction. The restriction on freedom of press compels citizens to think along the same tangent. “Homogenized views on issues that range from socio-economic polity to political ideologies would pose great dangers to democracy,” the bench said, adding that non-renewal of license for a channel is a restriction on the right to freedom of speech. The top court said the alleged link of the channel’s shareholders to Jamaat-e-Islami Hind is not a legitimate ground to restrict the rights of the channel.
It said the State is using national security as a tool to deny citizens remedies that are provided under the law.
“National security claims cannot be made out of thin air, there must be material facts backing it,” the bench said.
Here are the top 5 observations from the Supreme Court verdict.
“There is nothing to show terrorist links. National security claims cannot be made on the basis of thin air. It is seen that none of the material is against national security or threatens public order,” the bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said. “National security can’t be raised to deny people their rights… it was raised by the MHA in a cavalier manner in this case,” the court added.
“Government cannot be allowed to have a stand that press must support the government,” the court said, adding that criticism of government cannot be a ground to revoke license of a TV channel.
“An independent press is necessary for the robust functioning of a democratic republic. Its role in the democratic society is crucial, for it shines a light on the functioning of the State,” the court said.
“All investigation reports cannot be termed secret as these affect the rights and liberty of the citizens,” the court said, adding that there cannot be a “blanket immunity” to the government from disclosing information.
Tag: MediaOne
-
‘An Independent Press is Necessary’, says Supreme Court; Lifts telecast ban on Malayalam news channel MediaOne
-
Open justice: On the Supreme Court verdict in the MediaOne case
The Supreme Court verdict setting aside the denial of broadcasting permission to Malayalam channel MediaOne is one that protects the media against arbitrary action and bars the use of undisclosed national security considerations as a pretext to shut down an outlet. The Court has struck a blow for media freedom by ruling that the government could not term critical coverage or airing of critical opinions as “anti-establishment”, and so initiate action. It said: “The use of such a terminology… represents an expectation that the press must support the establishment.” The denial of security clearance to a media channel on the basis of views it was entitled to hold “produces a chilling effect on free speech and particularly on press freedom”. The Bench also cited substantive grounds to allow MediaOne’s petitions: that security clearance cannot be denied based on its alleged anti-establishment stance or a bald claim that its shareholders have links with the Jamaat-e-Islami. The Court has rightly found fault with the approach of the Kerala High Court, which had accepted material in a sealed cover on why the Home Ministry denied security clearance to the channel. It expressed surprise that the High Court did not explain how it felt the denial of security clearance was justified even after noting that the gravity of the issue was not discernible from the files.
A significant aspect of the judgment is that it seeks to end the casual resort to ‘sealed cover procedure’ by courts by suggesting an alternative approach to state claims of immunity from publication in public interest. Drawing upon both Indian and foreign jurisprudence, the Bench has said it is now an established principle of natural justice that relevant material must be disclosed to the affected party, ensuring that the right to appeal can be effectively exercised. It acknowledges that confidentiality and national security could be “legitimate aims for the purpose of limiting procedural guarantees”. However, a blanket immunity from disclosure of all reports could not be granted and that the validity of the involvement of such considerations must be assessed by the use of relevant tests. It could be ascertained if there is proof that non-disclosure is in the interest of national security and whether a reasonable person would come to the same inference from it. In a bid to balance the public interest in non-disclosure with the one in ensuring a fair hearing, the Court has mooted alternatives such as redacting sensitive portions and providing a gist of the material given to the affected party. The Court could also appoint an amicus curiae, who could be given access to the material whenever the state claims immunity from disclosure.
(The Hindu)