The Centre’s argument that the issue pertained to national security was rejected by the court. The Court noted that, “claims of national security cannot be made in the air…there is nothing to suggest a terrorist link.”
Supreme Court The Center on Wednesday rejected the Centre-sanctioned ban on a Malayalam news channel. The court said that criticism of the government’s policy cannot be called anti-incumbency. The court also expressed displeasure over the claims of the scam being ‘in the air’ by the Union Home Ministry’s claims related to national security.
Kerala High Court order quashed
Those who brokered Supreme Justice DY Chandrachud News Channel The order of the Kerala High Court concerned upholding the Centre’s decision to ban the telecast of the film on security grounds was set aside.
The bench said that the government cannot impose unnecessary restrictions on the press, as it would have a very bad effect on the freedom of the press. The court gave its verdict on the petition of the news channel.
The material on the basis of which the High Court had given its verdict Union Home Ministry In a sealed cover, the top court said the ministry’s decision to deny security clearance was based on various warrants received by the intelligence officer.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 134 Discos, said that the central government had unintended national security claims and the Intelligence Bureau (IB) report was based on information that was already in the public domain.
The critical quote cannot be called anti-authoritarian
Justice Hima Kohli is also included in this bench. The presiding officer said that the alleged link of the channel’s documents with Jamaat-e-Islami Hind is not a valid ground to restrict the rights of the channel. The court said, “Claims of national security cannot be made out of thin air. It is necessary to have solid facts to prove them.
The bench said that the critical views of an obscure news channel against the government cannot be termed as anti-incumbency as a free press is necessary for a strong democracy. The bench said, “It is the duty of the press to speak truth to power and to present those particular facts to the citizens, at any point of time the democracy is capable of choosing the option which is in the right direction.”
The bench said that the move of the Ministry of Media Information and Broadcasting by granting security clearance to a channel infringes upon the freedom of the press.
The Supreme Court criticized the Center for handing over the material in a sealed cover, saying it violated the principles of natural justice by not disclosing the reasons for denying security clearance and only by the court giving the information in a sealed cover. Have done. Article 21 of its constitution entitles the petitioner to the right of fair trial.
need for freedom of the press
The bench said, “Freedom of the press is essential for the smooth functioning of a democratic republic. Its role is important in a democratic society as it throws light on the functioning of the government. It is the duty of the press to tell truth to power and enable citizens to take decisions that move democracy in the right direction while upholding the specific bitter truth of the citizens.
The Supreme Court said that restrictions on the freedom of the press compel citizens to think in the same way. The forum said, “Such a thinking on issues ranging from socio-economic politics to political ideologies can pose a big threat to democracy.”
being used as a tool of national security
The court said that the government was using vast national security to give them privileges not due to citizens under the law. Criticism of Government policy cannot be brought under the ambit of the grounds given in Account 19(2) from anywhere. National security is being used as a tool to deny government citizens the remedies available under law.
The Supreme Court said that there are many responsibilities regarding the secrecy of the courts and amicus curiae should be appointed to help the court in passing reasoned orders.
The Kerala High Court upheld the Centre’s decision to ban the channel from airing on security grounds. The news channel had filed a petition in the Supreme Court against this order of the Kerala High Court.
The Supreme Court reprimanded the Center’s “sealed cover”, said – claims of national security cannot be made in the air
The Centre’s argument that the issue pertained to national security was rejected by the court. The Court noted that, “claims of national security cannot be made in the air…there is nothing to suggest a terrorist link.”
Supreme Court The Center on Wednesday rejected the Centre-sanctioned ban on a Malayalam news channel. The court said that criticism of the government’s policy cannot be called anti-incumbency. The court also expressed displeasure over the claims of the scam being ‘in the air’ by the Union Home Ministry’s claims related to national security.
Kerala High Court order quashed
Those who brokered Supreme Justice DY Chandrachud News Channel The order of the Kerala High Court concerned upholding the Centre’s decision to ban the telecast of the film on security grounds was set aside.
The bench said that the government cannot impose unnecessary restrictions on the press, as it would have a very bad effect on the freedom of the press. The court gave its verdict on the petition of the news channel.
The material on the basis of which the High Court had given its verdict Union Home Ministry In a sealed cover, the top court said the ministry’s decision to deny security clearance was based on various warrants received by the intelligence officer.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 134 Discos, said that the central government had unintended national security claims and the Intelligence Bureau (IB) report was based on information that was already in the public domain.
The critical quote cannot be called anti-authoritarian
Justice Hima Kohli is also included in this bench. The presiding officer said that the alleged link of the channel’s documents with Jamaat-e-Islami Hind is not a valid ground to restrict the rights of the channel. The court said, “Claims of national security cannot be made out of thin air. It is necessary to have solid facts to prove them.
The bench said that the critical views of an obscure news channel against the government cannot be termed as anti-incumbency as a free press is necessary for a strong democracy. The bench said, “It is the duty of the press to speak truth to power and to present those particular facts to the citizens, at any point of time the democracy is capable of choosing the option which is in the right direction.”
The bench said that the move of the Ministry of Media Information and Broadcasting by granting security clearance to a channel infringes upon the freedom of the press.
The Supreme Court criticized the Center for handing over the material in a sealed cover, saying it violated the principles of natural justice by not disclosing the reasons for denying security clearance and only by the court giving the information in a sealed cover. Have done. Article 21 of its constitution entitles the petitioner to the right of fair trial.
need for freedom of the press
The bench said, “Freedom of the press is essential for the smooth functioning of a democratic republic. Its role is important in a democratic society as it throws light on the functioning of the government. It is the duty of the press to tell truth to power and enable citizens to take decisions that move democracy in the right direction while upholding the specific bitter truth of the citizens.
The Supreme Court said that restrictions on the freedom of the press compel citizens to think in the same way. The forum said, “Such a thinking on issues ranging from socio-economic politics to political ideologies can pose a big threat to democracy.”
being used as a tool of national security
The court said that the government was using vast national security to give them privileges not due to citizens under the law. Criticism of Government policy cannot be brought under the ambit of the grounds given in Account 19(2) from anywhere. National security is being used as a tool to deny government citizens the remedies available under law.
The Supreme Court said that there are many responsibilities regarding the secrecy of the courts and amicus curiae should be appointed to help the court in passing reasoned orders.
The Kerala High Court upheld the Centre’s decision to ban the channel from airing on security grounds. The news channel had filed a petition in the Supreme Court against this order of the Kerala High Court.