Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India & Ors. 2023
Case Title and Citation
Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 8129 of 2022 (Reportable)
Factual Background
Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited (MBL) was initially granted permission by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) in 2011 to uplink and downlink a news and current affairs television channel called “Media One” for a period of ten years, following a security clearance from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The permission was subject to conditions, including revocation on grounds of national security and public order. In May 2021, MBL applied for renewal of these permissions. On January 5, 2022, MIB issued a show cause notice proposing to “revoke” the permission, citing the denial of security clearance by MHA as a failure to fulfill a prerequisite for renewal. MBL challenged this denial, stating they were not informed of the grounds for the denial. On January 31, 2022, MIB formally revoked the permission due to the MHA’s denial of security clearance. MBL challenged the revocation order before the Kerala High Court. The Union of India argued that disclosure of reasons was impossible because the intelligence inputs were “sensitive and secret in nature” and concerned national security. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed MBL’s challenge, relying exclusively on material disclosed in a sealed cover by the MHA. MBL appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
- Whether security clearance is one of the conditions required to be fulfilled for renewal of permission under the Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines [44(i)].
- Whether the denial of a renewal of license and the procedure adopted by the High Court (relying on sealed cover material) violated the appellants’ procedural guarantees under the Constitution [44(ii)].
- Whether the order denying renewal of license constitutes an arbitrary restriction on MBL’s right to the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution [45(iii)].
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the MIB order dated January 31, 2022, and the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated March 2, 2022. The Court directed MIB to issue renewal permissions in terms of the judgment within four weeks.
Reason for the Decision
The Court delivered a combined analysis of procedural and substantive law:
- Statutory Requirement: The Court confirmed that security clearance is a required condition for the renewal of permission under the Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines [375(i)].
- Procedural Infringement: The Court held that MBL’s right to a fair hearing (protected under Articles 14 and 21) was infringed.
- Unreasonable Procedure: The MIB issued an unreasoned order, and MHA refused to disclose relevant material, instead disclosing it only to the Court in a sealed cover. Non-disclosure of a summary of reasons, which constitutes the “core irreducible minimum” of procedural guarantees, failed the suitability prong of the proportionality standard.
- Sealed Cover Procedure Rejected: The Court found that the use of the sealed cover procedure was unguided and ad-hoc, infringing principles of both natural justice and open justice. The Court emphasized that Public Interest Immunity (PII) proceedings constitute a less restrictive means for handling confidential material, as PII removes the evidence entirely from the proceedings (meaning neither party nor the adjudicator relies on it), unlike the sealed cover procedure where the Court relies on non-disclosed material.
- National Security Claims: Although confidentiality and national security are legitimate aims for restricting procedural guarantees, merely invoking the phrase ‘national security’ does not provide blanket immunity or preclude judicial review. The State failed to prove that non-disclosure was justified on the facts of the case.
- Substantive Infringement (Freedom of Press): The reasons for denying security clearance were not legitimate grounds to restrict the freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a).
- Anti-Establishment Stance: The critical views of the channel on government policies cannot be termed “anti-establishment”. The expectation that the press must support the establishment violates free speech and creates a chilling effect on press freedom.
- JEI-H Link: The organization (JEI-H) was not banned, and in any event, there was no material to demonstrate any link between MBL shareholders and JEI-H sympathizers, making this allegation fallacious.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that the denial of permission for renewal of the license was procedurally arbitrary and substantively unwarranted, violating MBL’s constitutional right to a fair hearing and freedom of the press. The Court mandated the renewal of the license and condemned the use of the sealed cover procedure when less restrictive means (like PII) are available to protect confidential information. The Court further recognised the power to appoint an amicus curiae in PII proceedings to safeguard the claimant’s procedural guarantees while maintaining confidentiality.
