The Kerala High Court’s decision upholding the government’s decision to revoke the broadcast permission granted to Malayalam news channel MediaOne is clearly wrong. The I&B ministry did not renew the channel’s permission for uplink and downlink signals after the Union Home Ministry denied security clearance. The company and some employees challenged the action. The court seems to have supported the government’s stand that it was a national security issue and, therefore, there was no need to follow the principles of natural justice. The government claimed that there were sufficient reasons, even though they were not disclosed. It is unfortunate that the court decided to accept the submission of documents in a sealed cover and agreed with the authorities that there were intelligence inputs that denied security clearance without showing the contents to the petitioners. The court’s ruling goes against the emerging jurisprudence that any restriction on fundamental rights must not only be justified, as permitted in the Constitution, but must also meet the criterion of proportionality. In this case, broadcasting includes interconnected rights relating to freedom of the media, freedom to disseminate information, and freedom to consume information. All these come under the framework of freedom of speech and expression. The court seems to have accepted the ban without examining its reasonableness in any way. This has denied not only the channel’s right to broadcast but also its viewers’ right to know.
It is surprising that the court set aside the precedent established in a recent case that national security cannot be used as an excuse to avoid any judicial examination of state-imposed restrictions. The government did not grant free passes while increasing the threat to national security, the court noted in a case involving allegations of the use of Pegasus, a spyware, against civilians. In claiming that this was in a case that involved the ‘right to privacy’ and was not related to the MediaOne case, the judge seems to have made a mistake. The need to be vigilant against national security threats being raised to deny or curtail fundamental rights is a general principle, and is not limited to any specific right. Further, it is clearly unacceptable that the much-ridiculous form of ‘sealed cover’ justice is being used as an aid to adjudication. Even though courts recognize that matters of national security have limited scope for judicial review, any claim must be substantiated by the government, even if it is reluctant to disclose all details. If this practice of using confidential intelligence claims is encouraged to revoke permission to operate a channel, the freedom of the media will be at great risk.
,