Supreme Court Media One ASG MHA Justice DY Chandrachud Justice Hima Kohli Information And Broadcasting Ministry: The central government has finally been humiliated in the Supreme Court by its decision to ban the broadcasting of a southern news channel called Media One. In this regard, the highest court of the country has raised questions about the method of presentation of arguments in the preamble of the Centre. The apex court reprimanded and said that criminals are also given reasons.

On Wednesday, there was a case before the Supreme Court regarding the banning of the Malayalam news channel Media One. A case was filed in the Supreme Court by the channel challenging an order of the Kerala High Court. The Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting banned the channel from broadcasting. As an argument, the Ministry of Broadcasting says that they are not being given uplinking permission i.e. permission to broadcast without getting a security clearance from the Union Home Ministry.

The hearing was held today in a bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli of the Supreme Court. Chandrachud said that the issue of approval or cancellation of security clearance is under the Ministry of Home Affairs. Although they are not regulatory bodies but third parties. Licensing falls under the purview of the Ministry of Broadcasting. He raised the question, does not a citizen have the right to know on what basis the security clearance or cancellation has been made?

He told Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, that the security clearance or cancellation can be given by a third party. But, if someone is not given clearance, what is the person’s remedy? In this case, some information was submitted to the Kerala High Court by the Centre. Where security breaches were mentioned. Where Media One was not intimated about these reasons.

In this regard, Justice Chandrachud said, the purpose of the court is to inform both parties about the information. Expressing one’s reasoning to the other. You (Centre) are not saying that they are lawbreakers. Even when you have submitted the charge sheet, everything should be clearly written in it. But when you are talking about security clearance here, you should also tell what the information is. On what basis of information have you come to this conclusion, can you deny whether it should be disclosed?

The judge also said that even if someone is to be detained under the National Security Act, he has to give reasons. And here you said that the Ministry of Home Affairs did not give security clearance! Justice Chandrachud expressed surprise. He also said, who has not been given security clearance, to give an opportunity to know what is the breach of national security? The court also said that the renewal of broadcasting rights is very important in the case of a channel. Because he also had to keep investing for the channel to get permission. The staff has been appointed. Has established a reputation in the market.

The court expressed doubts about one more thing. That is, when the show cause notice was served on the channel in 2016, there was no indication that any adverse action would be taken against them. The judge asked Additional Solicitor General Nataraj to shed light on these matters.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here