Supreme Court on Wednesday said the Centre could not use the bogey of national security to curtail someone’s rights while reversing the telecast ban on MediaOne, a Malayalam news channel.
“National security claims cannot be made out of thin air. There must be material facts backing it,” the Supreme Court said. Non-disclosure of reasons for the ban by relying on security concerns and disclosing the same to the high court in a sealed cover violated the principles of natural justice, the right to fair proceedings, and was incompatible with the rule of law, the bench said. It is important to mention the cavalier manner in which the Union of India has raised the issue of national security," it added.
The alleged link of channel's shareholders to Jamaat-e-Islami Hind was not a legitimate ground to restrict the channel’s rights. “In any event, there is no material to show such link,” Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said while reading out the detailed verdict.
The Supreme Court directed the continuation of its earlier orders allowing MediaOne to telecast and directed the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) to initiate the process of license renewal within four weeks.
Sealed Cover procedure leaves one fighting in the dark
Supreme Court reiterated its observation that sealed covers violate principles of natural justice leaving the company “in the dark to fight out”.
“The sealed cover procedure adopted has rendered the rights of the petitioner as a dry parchment and the procedural guarantees to the petitioners have been rendered otiose,” it added. The top court observed there was no explanation on what weighed with the Kerala High Court while upholding the Centre’s ban.
The court added, "Sealed cover procedure cannot be introduced to cover harms that cannot be remedied by public immunity proceedings."
Sealed cover procedure should not be adopted if less restrictive means are available and can be adopted, the bench said.
Press has the duty to speak truth to power
The top court said the press has the duty to speak truth to power and inform citizens about hard facts enabling them to make choices that prepare democracy in the right direction. The supreme court’s observation came on the heels of the Home Ministry’s reliance on the channel’s criticism of the Centre on issues like Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), National Register of Citizens (NRC), criticism of judiciary, State etc.
Supreme Court said these were not justifiable grounds to refuse renewal of the channel’s broadcast license.
“The critical views of the channel against the govt policies cannot be termed as anti-establishment. This view presumes that press should always support the govt. An independent press is necessary for a robust democracy. The criticism of the policies of the govt cannot be stretched to mean any of the grounds under Article 19(2) which can restrict free speech," the bench said.