Express News Service
NEW DELHI: The state is using national security as a tool to deny citizens rights that are provided under the law. This is not compatible with the rule of law, the Supreme Court observed on Wednesday as it quashed the Centre’s denial of security clearance to Malayalam news channel MediaOne.
The top court ruled criticism of a government cannot be grounds to revoke the license of a media or television channel.
The Supreme Court was hearing the plea of the news channel against the Kerala High Court’s order which had upheld the Centre’s decision to ban its telecast on security grounds.
A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud pulled up the Ministry of Home Affairs for invoking national security, stating, “State is using plea of national security to deny rights of citizens. This is incompatible with rule of law. National security claims can’t be made out of thin air.”
“An independent press is vital for the robust functioning of a Democratic Republic. Its role in the democratic society is crucial, for it shines a light on the functioning of the State. The press has a duty to speak truth and present citizens with hard facts, enabling them to make choices that prepare democracy in the right direction. The restriction on the freedom of the press compels citizens to think along the same tangent. A homogenized view on issues that range from socioeconomic polity to political ideologies would pose grave dangers to democracy,” the court said.
The court also said that non-disclosure of reasons for the denial of security clearance by MHA and disclosure only to the court in a “sealed cover” violated the principles of natural justice and the right to fair proceedings, leaving the company “in the dark to fight out.”
ALSO READ | Revoking MediaOne’s license is clampdown on press freedom: Eminent persons
Laying down comprehensive guidelines for courts adopting ‘sealed cover’ procedure during hearing matters relating to national security, the bench said, “Sealed cover procedure cannot be introduced to cover harms that cannot be remedied by public immunity proceedings… Principles of natural justice may be excluded when the interests of national security outweigh. But a blanket immunity from disclosure cannot be granted… Sealed cover procedure infringes the principles of natural justice and open justice.”
The bench further ruled that MHA’s reliance on the channel’s report on the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, the National Register of Citizens (NRC), criticism of the judiciary and State for terming the channel as “anti-establishment” was not justified.
“All investigation reports cannot be termed secret as these affect the rights and liberty of the citizens,” the bench said.
The court also said that the press has a duty to speak truth to power and inform citizens about hard facts.
“The critical views of the channel against the govt policies cannot be termed as anti-establishment. This view presumes that the press should always support the govt. An independent press is necessary for a robust democracy. The criticism of the policies of the govt cannot be stretched to mean any of the grounds under Article 19(2) which can restrict free speech,” the court said.
What the top court said:
Kerala HC’s order upholding Centre’s decision to ban ‘MediaOne’ telecast on security grounds.
An independent press is necessary for a robust democracy.
Critical views of MediaOne channel against govt policies can’t be termed anti-establishment.
National security claims cannot be made out of thin air, there must be material facts backing it.
NEW DELHI: The state is using national security as a tool to deny citizens rights that are provided under the law. This is not compatible with the rule of law, the Supreme Court observed on Wednesday as it quashed the Centre’s denial of security clearance to Malayalam news channel MediaOne.
The top court ruled criticism of a government cannot be grounds to revoke the license of a media or television channel.
The Supreme Court was hearing the plea of the news channel against the Kerala High Court’s order which had upheld the Centre’s decision to ban its telecast on security grounds.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud pulled up the Ministry of Home Affairs for invoking national security, stating, “State is using plea of national security to deny rights of citizens. This is incompatible with rule of law. National security claims can’t be made out of thin air.”
“An independent press is vital for the robust functioning of a Democratic Republic. Its role in the democratic society is crucial, for it shines a light on the functioning of the State. The press has a duty to speak truth and present citizens with hard facts, enabling them to make choices that prepare democracy in the right direction. The restriction on the freedom of the press compels citizens to think along the same tangent. A homogenized view on issues that range from socioeconomic polity to political ideologies would pose grave dangers to democracy,” the court said.
The court also said that non-disclosure of reasons for the denial of security clearance by MHA and disclosure only to the court in a “sealed cover” violated the principles of natural justice and the right to fair proceedings, leaving the company “in the dark to fight out.”
ALSO READ | Revoking MediaOne’s license is clampdown on press freedom: Eminent persons
Laying down comprehensive guidelines for courts adopting ‘sealed cover’ procedure during hearing matters relating to national security, the bench said, “Sealed cover procedure cannot be introduced to cover harms that cannot be remedied by public immunity proceedings… Principles of natural justice may be excluded when the interests of national security outweigh. But a blanket immunity from disclosure cannot be granted… Sealed cover procedure infringes the principles of natural justice and open justice.”
The bench further ruled that MHA’s reliance on the channel’s report on the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, the National Register of Citizens (NRC), criticism of the judiciary and State for terming the channel as “anti-establishment” was not justified.
“All investigation reports cannot be termed secret as these affect the rights and liberty of the citizens,” the bench said.
The court also said that the press has a duty to speak truth to power and inform citizens about hard facts.
“The critical views of the channel against the govt policies cannot be termed as anti-establishment. This view presumes that the press should always support the govt. An independent press is necessary for a robust democracy. The criticism of the policies of the govt cannot be stretched to mean any of the grounds under Article 19(2) which can restrict free speech,” the court said.
What the top court said:
Kerala HC’s order upholding Centre’s decision to ban ‘MediaOne’ telecast on security grounds.
An independent press is necessary for a robust democracy.
Critical views of MediaOne channel against govt policies can’t be termed anti-establishment.
National security claims cannot be made out of thin air, there must be material facts backing it.
