Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, today, while arguing before the Supreme Court raised questions on the integrity of the division bench of the Kerala High Court that had upheld the ban imposed on MediaOne TV.

"What troubles me the most is that besides violation of natural justice, there is a serious issue of bias in the minds of judges who considered the evidence without giving an opportunity to my client to defend. Judges do not have extraordinary powers to violate principles of natural justice and pronounce judgment. They should be faithful to the oath of the office of justice", said the senior counsel while concluding his submissions.

It was his case that the Kerala High Court had upheld the ban on the basis of information that it got in sealed covers, which was not even divulged to the defending parties.

Regarding the practice of placing documents before the court in sealed covers, Senior Advocate Dave said that placing documents in 'sealed covers' has become a practice in the last 7-8 years. "Every bail matter is in sealed cover, this in a sealed cover, that in a sealed cover. Time for your lordships to look into it", he urged before the court. 

He contended that in the present matter, the reasons cited were 'public order' and 'national security', however, as to how the channel impinged on them was never cleared. 

Further, on the issue of denial of license renewal, Senior Advocate Dave said, "I don't understand the 'interest' of the nation". He said that the renewal should be automatic.

 At the very outset, he submitted that security clearance is not required at the time of renewal.

A Supreme Court bench of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli on Wednesday, continued hearing a batch of petitions sought by MediaOne TV challenging the Kerala High Court's order upholding the ban imposed on the channel. The channel went off air on January 31 this year, after its license was not renewed by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (I&B).

The matter will be heard further tomorrow.

Today, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for the Kerala Union of Working Journalists, began his arguments by referring to channels as 'new channel' and 'old channel'. He further questioned the words 'sensitive in nature' secret in nature', 'a matter of policy' used against the channel by the Ministry of Home Affairs. He also added that the word 'security' can not be read into Article 19(2) flippantly. 

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmedi, appearing for the chief editor of the channel, in his arguments submitted that "if the present circumstances continue, what will happen is that any major newspaper and channel can be banned just by using the words 'national security' and 'public order', and your lordships would be told that you can't inquire into the reasons. This will become even worse than the dicta in ADM Jabalpur which your lordships have recently overruled. Please don't allow States to have such plan".

While ASG K.M. Nataraj provided more details on the uplinking and downlinking. ASG submitted that a security clearance is required even at the time of renewal and that it can not be done away with. Further, the process of granting security clearance was elaborated by him before the Court.

To that the Court asked, "During the pendency of the show cause notice, you renewed downlinking for MediaOne, but denied the same to MediaOne Live. Now, after a lapse of 3 years and 6 months, this comes up". However, the Court did clear its intention behind the question. The bench said that it has some doubts, and therefore, to bring clarity, it is throwing such questions at him.

Background

Earlier a division bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly of the Kerala High Court on March 2 upheld the ban imposed on MediaOne TV. The Centre had told the Court that the denial of security clearance by the Home Affairs Ministry was based on inputs received from intelligence agencies. The Centre had argued that where national security is concerned, reasons for denial of security clearance need not be provided and principles of natural justice do not apply. 

While MediaOne had argued that it had been “victimised” for fair and genuine news reporting. 

As per the information available in public, Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. operates MediaOne under the Kerala chapter of Jamiat-e-Islami-Hind.

Case Title: MADHYAMAM BROADCASTING LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS