Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India (2023)

Introduction 

This case concerns the constitutional validity of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting's order refusing to renew the uplinking and downlinking permission for the television channel Media One. The core issues were whether the denial of security clearance without providing reasons violated the right to freedom of press under Article 19(1)(a) and whether the aggrieved party was denied a fair hearing. 

Facts 

• On 19 April 2010, Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited (MBL) applied for permission to uplink and downlink its news channel 'Media One'. 
• On 30 September 2011, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) granted permission for ten years. 
• On 3 May 2021, MBL applied for renewal of permission. 
• On 31 January 2022, MIB revoked the permission after the Ministry of Home Affairs denied security clearance to MBL, citing alleged links to Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (JEI-H). 
• The Union submitted its reasons through a sealed cover to the High Court of Kerala, not disclosing them to MBL. 
• MBL challenged the revocation through a writ petition under Article 226 in the High Court of Kerala, which was dismissed by both the Single Judge and Division Bench. 
• MBL appealed to the Supreme Court of India. 

Issues 

• Whether the refusal to renew permission violated MBL's right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a). 
• Whether MBL was denied a fair hearing and the right to natural justice. 
• Whether security clearance can be denied without providing reasons to the aggrieved party. 

Court's Observations 

Mandatory Disclosure of Reasons: 

• The Court held that the MHA must provide a summary of reasons for denial of security clearance as the bare minimum procedural safeguard. 
• Non-disclosure to MBL undermined freedom of press and denied a fair avenue to challenge the decision. 

Rejection of Sealed Cover Proceedings: 

• The Court disapproved of accepting evidence in sealed cover, finding it violative of natural justice and the rule of law. 
• Absolute immunity from disclosure for investigative reports is antithetical to a transparent and accountable system. 

Invalid Grounds for Denial: 

• The Court found that security clearance was denied based on alleged links to JEI-H and Media One's anti-establishment stance. 
• Since JEI-H is not a banned organization, such alleged links cannot affect national security. 
• There was no concrete evidence that MBL's shareholders sympathized with JEI-H. 
• The Intelligence Bureau's report consisted of inferences from publicly available information, not secretive material. 

Press Freedom and Expression: 

• Criticism of governmental policy is not a permissible reason to restrict expression under Article 19(2). 
• Media One's views were constitutionally protected, and denial of permission had a chilling effect on free speech. 

Compliance with Guidelines: 

• Media One had not violated the Programme Code on more than five occasions, meeting the renewal criteria under the guidelines. 

Decision of the Supreme Court: 

• The Supreme Court held that MIB's order revoking the permission was unconstitutional. The judgment, authored by Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud with Justice Hima Kohli concurring, directed MIB to issue renewal permissions within four weeks. 

Conclusion 

This landmark judgment reaffirmed that national security cannot be a blanket justification to deny constitutional rights or operate with complete opacity. The Court established that investigative agencies must provide reasons for denial of security clearance to the affected party, and sealed cover proceedings compromise natural justice.