Media Freedom Prevails: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. in License Renewal Case (5 April 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 5 April 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 289
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI and Hima Kohli, J

Can the government deny a media company its license renewal citing national security concerns without providing reasons? This was the core question before the Supreme Court in the case of Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited (MBL) vs. Union of India. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) was justified in revoking the permission granted to MBL to operate its news channel, ‘Media One’, based on denial of security clearance by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The Supreme Court bench comprising of Chief Justice of India, Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli delivered the judgment.

Case Background

Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited (MBL) was granted permission to operate its news channel, ‘Media One’, on 30 September 2011. This permission was granted for a period of ten years. MBL applied for renewal of the permission on 3 May 2021, which was to expire on 30 September 2021. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) denied security clearance to MBL, citing intelligence inputs. Consequently, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) issued a show cause notice to MBL on 5 January 2022, proposing to revoke the permission granted to operate Media One. MBL responded to the notice on 19 January 2022, stating that it was not aware of the grounds for denial of security clearance. MIB revoked the permission on 31 January 2022. MBL challenged this order before the High Court of Kerala, which dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court then heard the matter on appeal.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Kerala initially dismissed MBL’s petition, relying on sealed cover material provided by the MHA. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld this decision, stating that while the state cannot ordinarily interfere with the freedom of the press, the scope of judicial review is limited in matters involving national security. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the sealed cover files, granted an interim stay on the revocation order. The Supreme Court also kept open the issue of whether the contents of the files should be disclosed to the petitioners.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the ‘Policy Guidelines for Uplinking of Television Channels from India’ and the ‘Policy Guidelines for Downlinking of Television Channels’. Clause 9.2 of the Uplinking Guidelines stipulates that security clearance is a pre-requisite for grant of permission for TV channels. Paragraph 10 of the Uplinking Guidelines stipulates the conditions for renewal of existing permissions. According to paragraph 10.4, the terms and conditions applicable at the time when permission is granted would be applicable at the time of renewal, subject to modifications made by the terms of the permission. The annexure to the uplinking permission prescribes the following conditions:

• The Licensing Authority shall be empowered to impose such restrictions as may be necessary as and when required.
• The Licensing Authority shall have the power to revoke the licence on grounds of national security and public order.
• The Licensing Authority shall have the power to prohibit transmission of programmes considered to be prejudicial to friendly relations with foreign governments, public order, security of state, communal harmony etc.

The Court also considered Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, and Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law. The Court also discussed Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty, and its intersection with the principles of natural justice.

The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 and the rules framed under it were also considered.

Arguments

Submissions on behalf of MBL:

• Security clearance is a pre-condition only for the initial grant of permission, not for renewal.
• The renewal of permission is subject only to the channel not having been found guilty of violating the terms and conditions of the Programme and Advertising Code on five occasions or more.
• Security clearance cannot be denied on grounds that exceed the reasonable restrictions on the freedom of the press prescribed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
• MBL was not provided access to the material which MIB submitted before the High Court to support the allegations made in the show cause notice.
• The procedure followed by the High Court of relying on material in a ‘sealed cover’ is violative of the principles of natural justice.

Submissions on behalf of the Editor, Senior Web Designer and Senior Camera Man of Media One:

• The order issued by MIB violates MBL’s freedom protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
• The action of MIB denying the renewal of permission is not protected by reasonable restrictions prescribed in Article 19(2).
• The doctrine of proportionality envisages that the least restrictive means for restraining fundamental rights ought to be used.
• The High Court relied on material that was placed in a sealed cover to reject the challenge to the revocation order.

Submissions on behalf of the Kerala Union of Working Journalists:

• The freedom of the press is a precious freedom and must not be infringed callously.
• The High Court applied the same standard for both the grant of permission and renewal of license.
• If there was sensitive information in the material, the respondent could have redacted it before allowing the appellants to peruse the file.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondents:

• Security clearance is a pre-condition for renewal of license.
• MIB was justified in revoking the permission granted to Media One because MHA denied security clearance.
• The principles of natural justice stand excluded when issues of national security are involved.

Summary of Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether security clearance is one of the conditions required to be fulfilled for renewal of permission under the Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines.
2. Whether denying a renewal of license and the course of action adopted by the Division Bench of the High Court violated the appellants’ procedural guarantees under the Constitution.
3. Whether the order denying renewal of license is an arbitrary restriction on MBL’s right to the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Ex-Armymen’s Protection Services Private Limited v. Union of India [CITATION] and Digi Cable Network (India) Private v. Union of India [CITATION]: The Court distinguished these cases, clarifying that national security concerns do not permit an absolute abrogation of natural justice principles.

✓ Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [CITATION]: The Court followed this case, emphasizing that principles of natural justice infuse reasonableness into procedure.

✓ Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service [CITATION], The Zamora [CITATION] and Secretary of State for Home Department v. Rehman [CITATION]: The Court referred to these cases to clarify that while the government has a role in deciding national security, this does not preclude judicial review.

✓ Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh [CITATION] and Justice KS Puttaswamy (9J) v. Union of India [CITATION]: The Court followed these cases, emphasizing the proportionality standard to test reasonableness.

✓ State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh [CITATION], State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain [CITATION], and SP Gupta v. Union of India [CITATION]: The Court discussed and followed these cases, emphasizing the need to balance public interest with the administration of justice.

✓ Duncan v. Cammell Laird [CITATION]: The Court overruled this case, which had previously given precedence to form over substance in public interest immunity claims.

✓ Conway v. Rimmer [CITATION]: The Court followed this case, which established that the power to decide if evidence has to be withheld resides with the court and not the executive.

✓ R (Mohamed) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [CITATION]: The Court referred to this case, which applied a four-pronged test to determine the validity of a public interest claim.

✓ United States v. Reynolds [CITATION] and Binyam Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan [CITATION]: The Court referred to these cases to discuss the application of state secrets privilege in the US.

✓ Carey v. Majesty [CITATION] and R v. Ahmad [CITATION]: The Court referred to these cases to discuss the Canadian jurisprudence on non-disclosure of information.

✓ Al Rawi v. The Security Service [CITATION]: The Court referred to this case to discuss the closed material procedure and its impact on justice.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to protect the freedom of the press and ensure procedural fairness. The Court emphasized that the principles of natural justice cannot be completely disregarded, even in cases involving national security. The Court also expressed concerns about the lack of transparency and accountability in the sealed cover procedure. The need for a balance between national security concerns and fundamental rights was a key consideration.

Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning

For every ISSUE, the court’s logical reasoning is explained below:

Key Takeaways

• Security clearance is a necessary condition for both granting and renewing licenses for TV channels.
• The principles of natural justice cannot be completely excluded, even in matters of national security.
• The government must provide reasons for denying security clearance and cannot rely solely on sealed cover material.
• The freedom of the press is a vital component of a democratic society and must be protected.
• The proportionality standard must be used to assess the reasonableness of restrictions on fundamental rights, including procedural rights.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the MIB to issue renewal permissions to MBL within four weeks. All other authorities were directed to cooperate in issuing necessary approvals. The interim order of the Supreme Court was to continue until the renewal permissions were granted.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgement.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that while security clearance is a necessary condition for renewal of licenses, the denial of such clearance must be based on valid reasons and must adhere to the principles of natural justice. The judgment also clarifies that national security concerns do not permit an absolute abrogation of procedural guarantees. This case reinforces the importance of the freedom of the press and the need for transparency and accountability in government actions. The court also held that public interest immunity is a less restrictive means to deal with non-disclosure on the grounds of public interest and confidentiality.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited vs. Union of India is a significant victory for media freedom and the principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that the government cannot arbitrarily deny license renewals based on vague national security concerns. The judgment reinforces the need for transparency and accountability in government actions, especially when they impinge on fundamental rights. The Court also clarified that while security clearance is a necessary requirement, it cannot be used as a tool to suppress dissent or criticism of the government.