Supreme Court Says Central Government Documents Against Mediaone Are Unclear: The Channel’s Lawyers Said The Broadcast Ban Was A Denial Of Natural Justice The Supreme Court said that the documents submitted by the central government stating the reasons for canceling the license of MediaOne channel were unclear. The court’s observation was during the hearing of the plea filed by Madhyam Broadcasting Limited against the ban on the broadcast of MediaOne channel.

The Supreme Court has adjourned the petition for judgment. The arguments of MediaOne and the central government in the case have been completed. Justice D. Y. said that the judgment can be given later on the petition after hearing the arguments of both parties. The bench chaired by Chandrachud clarified.

At the same time, after examining the documents submitted under seal by the central government stating the reasons for banning MediaOne, the Supreme Court observed that there was ambiguity in the allegations put forward by the central government as the reason for the broadcast ban.

Additional Solicitor General K.M., who appeared for the government, said that the central government has gone ahead with the move to cancel the license of Media One due to reasons related to the security of the country. Nataraj pointed out throughout the argument.

But the lawyers appearing for MediaOne told the court that the ban on the channel is a denial of natural justice and if the license is revoked, they have the right to know in advance, including the reasons. Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, who appeared for MediaOne, Husefa Ahmadi, who appeared for MediaOne editor Pramod Raman, and Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for the Journalist Union, conveyed this in the Supreme Court.


Following this, the court directed that the verdict cannot be declared ex parte and therefore the central government should clarify the security reasons it says have led to the banning of MediaOne’s broadcast.

But central government lawyer Nataraj replied that he has not received any instruction to convey this publicly in the court. ”Details of the case are sensitive and cannot be shared with the channel management. It will not be shared with other parties due to security reasons,” Nataraj said in the submission.

”You are not saying that they (the channel) have committed an offense under the law. Even if an offense is committed under the law, an investigation will be conducted and a charge sheet will be filed and the nature of the investigation will be disclosed in the charge sheet.

No matter how sensitive your investigation is…once you have completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet, the charge sheet should disclose the basis on which you have registered the crime. No matter how serious the case, the charge sheet will reveal everything.

Here you are denying a security clearance,” a bench comprising Justices Chandrachud and Hima Kohli said during the hearing.

The court also asked yesterday what was the obstacle in notifying the channel owners of the reason for denying the broadcast. The court also asked how the channel will take further action without knowing the reason for the denial of permission.

“The Supreme Court asked what is the obstacle in notifying the channel owners of the reason for denying the broadcast. Even those who are detained under the National Security Act under the Criminal Procedure Code must be informed of the reason for the same. “How can those who are denied permission take legal action without knowing the reason,” the Supreme Court asked.

Justice Chandrachud said the central government can hide the source of the submitted documents, but cannot withhold the information.


Dushyant Dave and Mukul Rothagi alleged in the court that the central government is taking such action against Media One because it is a channel belonging to minorities and the central government has a problem with the religious beliefs of the channel owners.

Rohatgi also argued in the court that if the government is allowed to keep the media houses down with the two words ‘security’ and ‘sanction’, it will be the death knell of media work.

The bench heard the case and asked the central government’s lawyer Natarajan to read some pages of the sealed file. After perusing the fifth paragraph on pages 807 and 808 and pages 839 and 840 of the file, the court pointed out that there was ambiguity in the report submitted by the central government.

Earlier, the Division Bench of the High Court had also observed that there was ambiguity in the central government documents and they were inaccurate. Justice D.Y. asked Natarajan whether he understood what was written like this in the judgment of the division bench. Chandrachud asked.

MediaOne’s lawyer Dushyant Dave argued that the channel had already received security clearance, security clearance was required when the channel got its license ten years ago, and there was no need for security clearance at the time of license renewal. Dushyant Dave said that the license of any channel cannot be revoked unilaterally and if it violates the law more than five times only the said program or the network in the said area will be cut therefore the central government has not moved against MediaOne in the manner prescribed by the law.

Considering this argument, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud is set aside. Madhyam Broadcasting Limited, MediaOne editor Pramod Raman and Kerala Union of Journalists (KUWJ) have filed the petition as parties.

On January 31 last, the Union Ministry of Communications and Broadcasting issued an order banning MediaOne from broadcasting. A single bench of the High Court dismissed the petitions questioning this on February 8. Challenging the Single Bench order, the Division Bench was approached but that too was dismissed.

The central government informed the High Court that the operation of the channel was a threat to the country’s security and the action was taken based on the report of intelligence agencies. But the Center did not release the reasons and details. The Centre’s argument was that it could not be publicized.

The channel authorities had already stated that they were not informed about the reasons for the ban and that the central government’s decision was completely arbitrary. It was also argued in the High Court that the central move was aimed at destroying the channel.

Media One filed the case in the Supreme Court after the petition against the channel ban was rejected by the High Court Single Bench and Division Bench.

The Supreme Court had ordered that the ban imposed by the Central Government on the channel stayed and the broadcast was allowed. D.Y. said that the channel will work in the same way as earlier. Chandrachud presided over the order.

The Supreme Court stayed the order canceling MediaOne’s license after considering two sets of files in sealed envelopes submitted by the central government and examining them once.

Justice Chandrachud said that he disagreed with the sealed envelopes when he said that the details were in the sealed envelopes. The court asked why the channel was banned and then examined the sealed envelopes. The crucial order was issued after examining the files for 15 minutes.

But now the petition is not being considered by the Supreme Court bench which was hearing the case then. If the case was heard then by a bench consisting of Justice Suryakant and Justice Vikramnath, headed by Justice DY Chandrachud, today Justice Hima Kohli and Justice DY. A two-member bench with Chandrachud heard the case.

Follow For More Interesting Article At LatestSerialGossip.Com


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here