Sc Concludes That National Security Considerations Cannot Entirely Supersede The Rule Of Natural Justice

Case title:

Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited vs Union of India & Ors.

Date of Order:

5th April 2023

Bench:

Justice Hima Kohli and Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud

Parties:

Petitioner: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited

Defendant: Union of India & Ors.

Facts:

• The Appellant Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited (MBL) received "MediaOne" security clearance from the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2011 for a period of ten years. However, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting ordered the security clearance to be revoked and sent MBL a notice to demonstrate cause within six years. In addition, the respondent declined to renew the licence for reasons related to national security, though they were not made public.
• The appellants filed a lawsuit under Article 136 of the Constitution to oppose the MIB's order "revoking" Media One's right to uplink and downlink rulings from the Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court of Kerala dismissed the petitions brought by MBL and other respondents based on the information the Union Ministry of Home Affairs had supplied to the court in a sealed cover, noting that licence revocation may be required when constitutional considerations are in play. The appellants then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of India.
• According to the appellant's attorney, MIB's decision to revoke the authorization given to uplink and downlink the channel Media One was unconstitutional. The requirement for a security clearance only applies to the granting of authorization to operate a channel, not to the renewal of an existing permission. It is unavoidable, even if it goes beyond the justified restrictions on press freedom outlined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. To establish whether a security clearance will be granted or denied, the limits mentioned in Article H(2) must be read in connection with Section 4(6) of the Republications Act of 1995 and the Cable Television Networks (Regulations) Act of 1995.
• Between 2011 and 2022, the security clearance was not withdrawn, but the renewal should have been approved if the show cause notice had not made any allegations of contract violations. The Union of India transgressed the rules of an open court and party fairness by delivering information in a "sealed cover." The respondent did not provide any additional information beyond the assertion that the material was classified and that the rejection was issued in the interest of national security.
• In support of each respondent, Mr. K. M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General, contended that MIB had every right to revoke the authorization granted to Media One because a security clearance is a need for licence renewal. The Centre argued that the natural justice principle should not be applied in cases of natural security because it has already been established by judgements in the cases Ex-Army Men's Protection Services Private Limited v. Union of India and Others (2014) and Digi Cable and Network (India) Private Limited v. Union of India and Others (2019).

Issue Raised:

• Whether obtaining a security clearance is one of the requirements listed in the Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines for renewing permission; 
• Whether the Division Bench of the High Court's decisions and the rejection of a licence renewal violated the appellants' constitutionally protected procedural rights.
• To what extent the appellant's right to free speech and expression was arbitrarily restricted by the order refusing renewal of the licence.

Arguments:

• The two procedural arguments of natural justice and proportionality led the Supreme Court to uphold Media One's appeal. In the case of "Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India," the concepts of natural justice were enshrined in Indian law. It is the claimant's responsibility to establish that the procedure used went beyond the essential protections of procedural rights in a dispute involving natural justice.
• In the case of "Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited vs. Union of India & Ors," Media One established that MBL's right to a fair hearing was violated by the MIB's unexplained order dated January 31, 2022, as well as by the appellants' failure to receive pertinent information and the court's exclusive revelation of that information. In this case, it is the responsibility of the Centre to demonstrate that the procedure followed was reasonable and in accordance with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
• The two-judge panel that rendered the judgement was composed of Justices CJI D.Y. ChandraChud and Justice Hima Kohli. A transparent and accountable system would be undermined if all investigative agency reports were given blanket immunity from disclosure. These reports also have a greater influence on choices impacting people's lives, freedoms, and occupations. 
• Therefore, there are several ways to prevent the publication of any investigation findings. The courts should proceed with less rigour even where the withholding of material is justified by national security considerations.
• Courts should use the remedy of redacting private elements of the sealed cover document and providing a summary of the document's contents to fairly exclude materials after a successful public interest immunity claim.
• The Court went on to add that although it is agreed that confidentiality and national security are both reasonable goals, it is nevertheless possible to determine whether the State's refusal to reveal has anything to do with national security. It was argued that the courts would not adopt a "hands-off" attitude just because national security arguments were made, citing the Pegasus case (ML Sharma v. Union of India).

Analysis:

• The Kerala High Court's single bench first upheld the restriction on the media outlet known as Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited.
• The supporters of Media One contended that they were not given an opportunity to respond and that the Indian Constitution only permits restrictions on freedom of speech and expression for the reasons listed in Article 19(2).
• The two procedural arguments of natural justice and proportionality led the Supreme Court to uphold Media One's appeal.It is the claimant's responsibility to establish that the procedure used went beyond the essential protections of procedural rights in a dispute involving natural justice.
• The Supreme Court determined that the respondents' chosen means did not adhere to the other criteria for proportionality.
• The case has been crucial in highlighting the significance of natural justice and proportionality in maintaining fairness in court procedures, particularly in circumstances involving concerns about national security.

Conclusion:

As an illustration of this type of censorship, consider the "Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited vs. Union of India & Ors" case, in which the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting declined to renew the broadcast licence of the Malayalam channel MediaOne. The denial was justified by claimed ties between Jamaat-e-Islami Hind and the channel's promoters, Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited. Legal experts and members of the media have been closely following the case because it raises serious questions concerning the freedom of speech and expression.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement