[MediaOne Ban] Arguments concluded; Judgment reserved: Sealed cover to be shared or redacted Court to decide

A Supreme Court bench of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli on Thursday, 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 arguments have been concluded, and the bench has reserved the judgment on the matter.

In the arguments today, Additional Solicitor General of India, KM Nataraj made submissions vehemently defending the rationale of filed in sealed cover. While stressing on the essentiality of security clearance he referred to a few cases to establish that in cases where there is an imminent threat to national security, then not even the Court can insist on the compliance of the principles of natural justice. This argument was put forth in response to the submissions by the petitioners that, the documents that were shared with the court in sealed covers and were not shared with the parties to defend, impinged on their fundamental rights and were in absolute contravention to the principles of natural justice.

He further stated that the definition as to what exactly constitutes the interest of national interest, is a matter of policy. Which therefore, lies with the policy makers. And that it should be left upon the executive to decide on.

The Court then said, that the channel continued for 10 years, where counter was not even filed before the High Court, and Additional Solicitor had filed a statement, which was unusual. The criteria of national security should have been broad, where context should have been seen rather, the Court further added. Passing an order would be unfair without showing them the file (which was in sealed cover) and the reasons for denying renewal, for which otherwise a privilege should have been claimed, which they didn't. "They are arguing with one hand tied at the back", Court urged.

Court further stated that considering the jobs at stake in the present matter, it wouldn't be fair to decide against the channel. However, the Court did say that the need and relevance of sealed cover can not be undermined or questioned in every case, but the necessity should be supplied with a reason.

ASG Nataraj then said, that they have an absolute right to be considered, and they were even considered. But divulging information received though IB reports, would have serious consequences.

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