New Delhi: It is the duty of the press to speak the truth, and critical views expressed by the media cannot be termed as anti-incumbency, the Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the central government’s order denying renewal broadcast license to a Malayalam news channel. mediaone,
The Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had denied security clearance to the channel due to its alleged links with Islamic organization Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, which the government alleged – citing Intelligence Bureau (IB) report Happened – had terrorist links. This finding was rejected by the SC, which said there was nothing to show a terrorist link.
With its order, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli overruled a Kerala High Court order, which upheld the government’s order, and directed the concerned authority to file within four weeks all directed to grant necessary approvals.
The court said that the denial of approval for license renewal of the channel “has an adverse impact on the liberty of individuals and organizations”. The refusal to operate the channel under the restrictions provided in Article 19(2) of the Constitution was not justified.
In its judgement, the bench noted that the IB report, on the basis of which the Home Ministry had denied clearance, relied on the programs and comments made on the channel against the National Register of Citizens (NRC), the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) Was. ), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and judgments of the judiciary.
Programs showing leniency towards alleged Hindu extremists involved in crimes were also criticized as anti-national.
The court emphasized the role of a free and independent press and its importance in the sound functioning of a democratic republic. The media cannot be classified as anti-establishment merely because it expresses critical views, the court said, adding “to do so would mean that the media should be supporting the establishment instead”.
It states that “a free press… is important in a democratic society because it sheds light on the workings of the state.”
“It is the duty of the press to speak truth to power and to present citizens with hard facts that enable them to make choices that take democracy in the right direction. Restrictions on freedom of the press strike citizens with the same touch.” Makes you think.” “A homogenous approach on issues ranging from socio-economic politics to political ideologies would pose a serious threat to democracy.”
mediaone The channel was shut down on 31 January 2022, following which it approached the Kerala HC. However, on 8 February, a single judge bench of Justice Nagresh upheld the decision of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting To cancel the license of the channel.
An appeal from the channel operator Madhyamum Broadcasting, mediaone Chief Justice S. A division bench of Justice Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chali had also quashed editor Pramod Raman and the Kerala Union of Working Journalists, following which the channel had to approach the top court in March last year.
On 13 March, the SC granted interim relief allowing the channel to continue its operations.
in SC, The Center relied on inputs from the IB to defend the ban. During the arguments, he refused to give the IB report to the other side, but gave it to the court in a sealed cover. The Center said that disclosing the contents of the report would not be in the national interest.
refused to make it public Concerns raised by the Ministry of Home Affairs, arguing that a party cannot insist on following principles of natural justice in a situation involving national security.
While rejecting the Centre’s stand, the court criticized it for filing the Home Ministry’s report in a sealed cover before the HC and The “cavalier manner” in which he “raised the claim of national security” for refusing to give information to the company.
Read also: On World Press Freedom Day, India’s ranking drops to 150 out of 180 countries
‘Channel rights affected’
National security concern was cited as the reason for disclosing the reasons for the ban only to the court and not to the court. mediaoneaffected the rights of the channel, the court ruled.
“Sealed-cover procedure has been adopted, which has provided the rights of the petitioner as dry parchment and procedural guarantees have been provided to the petitioners. The sealed cover has prevented fair and reasonable proceedings by leaving the appellants in the dark to fight the case has curtailed the rights of
The court said, “While we hold that it would be impractical and unwise for the courts to define the phrase national security, we also hold that claims of national security cannot be created out of thin air. There is no evidence to support such a presumption.” There is no relation between the material on file and the inferences to be drawn from such material.”
On perusal of the material, the court said, “No reasonable person would jump to the conclusion that non-disclosure of the material concerned would be in the interest of national security and confidentiality”.
The court also faulted the government for not granting security clearance to the channel because of its alleged links with Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (JEIH), which the court noted, is not a banned organisation.
The court noted that in the absence of any restrictions on JEIH, “it would be preposterous for the State to argue that the association with the organization prejudicially affects the sovereignty and integrity of the State, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states or public order”.
It added that there was no evidence on record to show that the channel’s shareholders were JEIH sympathizers, and therefore “the objective of denying security clearance, is not a valid aim and proper objective”.
The court said, “Although privacy and national security are legitimate objectives for the purpose of limiting natural guarantees, the State was unable to prove that these considerations arise in the present factual scenario. All investigative reports have not been fully exempted from disclosure.” May go.”
On IB reports claiming terrorist links of JEIH, the court remarked: “There are some reports cited by IB that the reports were circulated in favor of minorities, criticized UAPA, NRC, CAA and criticized judiciary and executive carried out… such reports are mere conjectures of what is available in the public domain. There was nothing to show terrorist links.”
Further, the court rejected the Centre’s contention that mediaone Was associated with JEH. “It is alleged that mediaone affiliated with JEIH and JEIH is not a banned organization, the court said.
(Editing by Sunanda Ranjan)
Read also: Foreign media, rights bodies condemn IT raid on BBC, shows India’s poor ‘press freedom’ score