The Supreme Court verdict on the Media One case is a leg up for Press freedom in the country. Media One is a Malayalam news channel with its headquarters in Kerala. It is owned by Jamaat-e-Islamia Hind, which is not a banned organisation. Its licence ended a year ago. However, its application for extension of the licence was rejected on the grounds of national security. Nobody knows on what grounds the government considered the channel a threat to national security warranting its closure. There had been no specific example of the channel working against the national interest. What’s worse, the channel was not told why its licence could not be extended. When Media One challenged the order of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in the High Court of Kerala, the government handed over to the judge a sealed cover in which the reasons for the ban on the channel were allegedly enumerated.
The sealed cover reportedly contained intelligence inputs provided by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Since the reports were secretive, the government did not think it necessary to share with the aggrieved party. When the verdict was challenged before a larger Bench, the same routine was followed. In both cases, the judges were convinced and the decision to ban its operations was upheld. That is how Media One had to approach the apex court, which lifted the ban and allowed its operations to continue till a final order was issued. The court did not subscribe to the view that the reasons for the ban should not be revealed to the channel. Without knowing the reasons for the ban, how could the channel respond to them or make amends? This was totally against the principle of natural Justice whereby the prosecution enjoyed an upper hand at the cost of the defendant.
True, the prosecution could have argued that revealing everything in a court could be prejudicial, as it could involve the privacy of some persons. That is why in-camera hearing of cases is allowed. But in no case can the defendant be kept in the dark about what wrong it committed to warrant the impugned decision that compromised its business interests. For a news channel, nothing is more important than its credibility. If its reliability is questioned in a totally opaque manner, it has no way in which it can defend itself. Right from the beginning of the case, Media One was kept in darkness, while allowing the prosecution, wearing night-vision glasses, to throw bricks at it. Granted, the I&B Ministry and the Home Ministry have the power to take action against the channel if it at any time compromised national security. But why keep the charges in a sealed envelope, inaccessible to the channel?
Everything was done by citing national security. The Bench, headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, found unacceptable the government using national security in a “cavalier manner” while striking at Media One. “The denial of security clearance to a channel for its views produces a chilling effect on free speech, particularly on Press freedom.” In fact, the court added that “national security claims cannot be made out of thin air”. The verdict will enable the channel to operate in a free and fair manner. Nonetheless, it will take many years for it to clear the suspicion created in the minds of the general public about its bona fides. It will take a long time to regain lost viewership and business opportunities. In other words, Channel One is more sinned against than sinning.
The verdict should serve as a warning to those in the government who invoke national security at the drop of a hat. India is a democratic country, the cornerstone of which is the rule of law. Laws framed under the Constitution alone should be the determinant factor. There are, of course, exceptional cases for which also there are specific applicable provisions. However, exceptions cannot be the rule. Nothing untoward has happened since the apex court allowed Media One to function and there is little to believe that anything untoward would happen to national security if this channel continues to broadcast news and views. National security is not as fragile as the government thinks.
(To receive our E-paper on WhatsApp daily, please click here. To receive it on Telegram, please click here. We permit sharing of the paper's PDF on WhatsApp and other social media platforms.)
