The Media One Case: Is Media One ban removed?

It is the fundamental tenet of democracy that the State shall remain impartial in the world of ideas. Yet, the fundamental right of Speech and Expression is subject to reasonable restrictions and the idea of freedom of the press is not explicitly articulated under Indian Constitution. The idea of free speech combined with free press is long-contested. The press plays a pivotal role in devising public opinion and shaping ideologies of the masses. This is the grey area where judicial activism intervenes to defend the freedom of press.

This article highlights the significance of the judiciary in interpreting the laws in a liberalistic approach and how it protects the freedom of press, specifically in the case of Media One News.

In a recent circumstance, the Apex Court bench had set aside the Center’s order to revoke the license granted for uplink and downlink to Media One owning to denial of security clearance. 

What is the Media One Case? 

Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. (owners of Media One) appeared before Kerala High Court against the order of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (IBM) rejecting to renew the license of Media One, citing the denial of security clearance by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) as the reason for the same.  

• Observations of Single Judge Bench of Kerala High Court - The Single Judge Bench dismissed the petition stating that the court is not inclined to interfere with the denial of renewal of license by MHA, which was then appealed at the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. 

• Decision rendered by Division Bench of Kerala High Court  -  It was of the view that there are definite indications that renewing MBL's authorization to operate the channel would jeopardize state security and public order and upheld the decision of IBM. Aggrieved by this, the channel was prompted to approach the Supreme Court under Article 136 of Constitution of India to enforce its rights. 

What Supreme Court said on Media One Case?

The Supreme Court bench comprising of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and J. Hima Kohli, carefully analyzed the material and evidences on record and consequently, quashed the ban imposed by Ministry of Home Affairs. 

• Court on the mechanism of “Sealed Cover” - The court was of the view that completely relying on the contents of “sealed cover” presented by Additional Solicitor General negates the principles of natural justice and deprives MBL the opportunity to be fairly heard. The non-disclosure of even summary of reasons for denying security clearance does not share a rational connection with the purpose of protecting the interest of national security. 

The Centre did not attempt justifying how non-disclosure will impair national security, and solely mentioning national security will not absolve the Centre from judicial scrutiny. Sealed cover protocols defy both natural justice and open justice norms. National security cannot be the bugbear that the judiciary shies away from, by virtue of its mere mentioning. Therefore, the national security cannot be claimed as a defense out of ‘thin air’. 

• Remarks on Freedom of Press - CJI highlighted the significance of free and independent press in democratic state and noted that it is vital for the ‘robust functioning of a democratic republic.’ It moulds and shapes the ideologies of the public. Consequently, restricting press freedom and labeling skeptical perspectives as "anti-establishment" undermines the very essence of democracy. 

It is preposterous to reckon that any of the reasonable restrictions enumerated under Article 19(2) would apply to situation of dissent of state actions/policies. Documents should not be concealed from dissemination solely because doing so would evoke political indignation. In a democracy centered on transparent government, the right to truth cannot be curtailed out of concern for critiquing the government's course of action.

Way forward recommended by the Apex Bench 

• The bench headed by CJI established a comprehensive protocol for the judiciary to adhere to when the State vigorously tries to defend information exclusivity. The court ruled that in order to balance concerns about confidentiality with the need to maintain public confidence in the objectivity of the justice delivery process, a court should implement the proportionality test to determine interest of the public immunity assertions and assign an amicus curiae who would have possession to the confidential material.

• The bench further suggested that in order to appropriately withhold information following the victory of the public interest immunity claim, the courts might elect to amend classified elements of the record and provide a narrative of its contents.

Conclusion

It is rightfully observed by Venkataramiah, J. that “In today's free world freedom of press is the heart of social and political intercourse.” The Supreme Court had time and again interpreted rights of press in a broader and liberal sense. Since the inception, the judicial stance tends to have been founded on a fair and stabilizing approach. On the one hand, it recognized the importance of the press in contemporary era and condemned any state intervention that precludes or places unreasonable restrictions on the press; on the other hand, it did not disregard country's interests and declined to endorse any endeavor by media to shield itself from generally applicable laws.