E-Paper
SC lifts ban on MediaOne TV channel, says ‘averse to sealed cover jurisprudence’
Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud told the Centre at Tuesday’s hearing in the Supreme Court that it will have to disclose “something” about the reasons why the Centre’s security clearance to Malayalam TV news channel MediaOne was revoked
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed Malayalam TV news channel MediaOne to resume broadcast, nearly six weeks after the government revoked its security clearance forcing it to shut down.
“At the present stage, the prayer for interim relief has been made out by the petitioner. Having due regard to the contents of the files produced by the respondent (Centre), the order of the Union government revoking security clearance granted to the petitioner (Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited, or MBL) shall remain stayed pending further orders,” said the bench of justices Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath.
The interim direction by a three-judge bench of the top court came after going through the secret intelligence inputs cited by the government to revoke the clearance.
The TV channel has not been given access to the intelligence inputs which led to the revocation of the security clearance. It was, however, submitted to the Kerala high court in a sealed cover and formed the basis for the high court rejecting the TV channel’s appeal. On March 10 when the Supreme Court asked the Centre to respond to the channel’s petition, it had called for the official files also for its perusal.
At Tuesday’s hearing, senior advocates Dushyant Dave and Huzefa Ahmadi appearing for the TV channel objected to the “sealed cover business” as it effectively resulted in an order being passed behind their back.
“If this is allowed, no channel or media house in this country can be safe,” Dave told the bench. He said that the security clearance is granted once to the channel and was not needed for renewal of its uplinking license which was due in November 2021.
“For six weeks we are shut down simply because the channel is run by members of the minority community. If my channel runs, heavens will not fall. It cannot be so serious a national security threat that I can make the government fall,” Dave said. He added that the channel has 350 employees and a monthly salary bill of ₹83 lakh was due for payment.
On the TV channel’s point about sealed cover, justice Chandrachud agreed.
“I am averse to sealed cover jurisprudence,” the judge said and told the Centre that “you have to disclose to them something”.
Even as the bench examined the confidential files, it clarified: “The perusal of files by the court to the exclusion of the petitioner is not an expression of this court on the tenability of contention of the petitioner that they will be entitled to inspect the files which will be open to them at the time of final disposal.”
“The issue as to whether the content of files (of MHA) should be disclosed to the petitioner to enable them to pursue their challenge is kept open and will be decided before the petition is taken up for final disposal,” the bench said as it wrapped up the hearing and posted the case for next month.
To be sure, the Centre vehemently opposed the order for interim relief and wanted time to file its response.
Additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju, who appeared for the Centre along with ASG KM Nataraj, objected to the court order allowing the channel to resume operations. Raju pointed out that the license of the channel expired in September end and was due for renewal. He told the court that the stay on the revocation of security clearance does not automatically result in the renewal of the channel’s licence, which has to be separately applied for.
The bench shot back: “You allowed them to continue in operation from November till January. The renewal was not denied on the ground that licence had expired but that security clearance was revoked.”
ASG Nataraj informed the court that granting clearance to the petitioner is “dangerous” as they began a campaign on YouTube against the single-judge bench of the Kerala high court which dismissed their petition last month. Dave, however, contested this version, asserting that the channel had categorically disowned and condemned any such action in the high court.
The MediaOne channel was given security clearance by the union ministry of home affairs (MHA) in February 2011 following which it obtained a licence to operate the channel in September 2011. This permission had to be renewed after 10 years. On January 5 this year, the channel was issued notice to revoke permission on the ground of “national security and public order”. In February 2020, the channel’s licence was briefly suspended by MHA following its coverage of the Delhi riots.
