9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 1010 - SC - Indian LawsRevocation of permission granted to Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited (MBL) by Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) to uplink and downlink a news and current affairs television channel called Media One - HELD THAT - The findings are summarised as below (i) Security clearance is one of the conditions required to be fulfilled for renewal of permission under Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines; (ii) The challenge to the order of the MIB and judgment of the High Court on procedural grounds is allowed for the following reasons (a) The principles of natural justice were constitutionalised by the judgement of this Court in Maneka Gandhi 1978 (1) TMI 161 - SUPREME COURT . The effect is that the courts have recognised that there is an inherent value in securing compliance with the principles of natural justice independent of the outcome of the case. Actions which violate procedural guarantees can be struck down even if non-compliance does not prejudice the outcome of the case. The core of the principles of natural justice breathes reasonableness into procedure. The burden is on the claimant to prove that the procedure followed infringes upon the core of procedural guarantees; (b) The appellants have proved that MBL s right to a fair hearing has been infringed by the unreasoned order of the MIB dated 31 January 2022, and the non-disclosure of relevant material to the appellants, and its disclosure solely to the court. The burden then shifts on the respondents to prove that the procedure that was followed was reasonable and in compliance with the requirements of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The standard of proportionality has been used to test the reasonableness of the procedure. (c) The judgments of this court in EX. ARMYMEN'S PROTECTION SERVICES P. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. 2014 (2) TMI 1422 - SUPREME COURT and DIGI CABLE NETWORK (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2019 (1) TMI 2026 - SUPREME COURT held that the principles of natural justice may be excluded when on the facts of the case, national security concerns overweigh the duty of fairness; (d) Though confidentiality and national security are legitimate aims for the purpose of limiting procedural guarantees, the state has been unable to prove that these considerations arise in the present factual scenario. A blanket immunity from disclosure of all investigative reports cannot be granted; (e) The validity of the claim of involvement of national security considerations must be assessed on the test of (i) whether there is material to conclude that the non-disclosure of information is in the interest of national security; and (ii) whether a reasonable prudent person would draw the same inference from the material on record; (f) Even assuming that non-disclosure is in the interest of confidentiality and national security, the means adopted by the respondents do not satisfy the other prongs of the proportionality standard. The non-disclosure of a summary of the reasons for the denial of security clearance to MBL, which constitutes the core irreducible minimum of procedural guarantees, does not satisfy the suitability prong; (g) The courts assess the validity of public interest immunity claims, which address the same harms as the sealed cover procedure, based on the structured proportionality standard. The power of courts to secure material in a sealed cover when contradistinguished with the scope of assessment of public interest immunity claims is rather unguided and ad-hoc. The standard of review that is used by the courts in public interest immunity claims and the lack of such a standard in sealed cover proceedings to protect procedural safeguards indicates that public interest immunity claims constitute less restrictive means. Additionally, while public interest immunity claims conceivably impact the principles of natural justice, sealed cover proceedings infringe the principles natural justice and open justice; (h) The courts could take the course of redacting confidential portions of the document and providing a summary of the contents of the document to fairly exclude materials after a successful public interest immunity claim; and (iii) The challenge to the order of MIB is allowed on substantive grounds. The non-renewal of permission to operate a media channel is a restriction on the freedom of the press which can only be reasonably restricted on the grounds stipulated in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The reasons for denying a security clearance to MBL, that is, its alleged anti- establishment stance and the alleged link of the shareholders to JEI-H, are not legitimate purposes for the restriction of the right of freedom of speech protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. In any event, there was no material to demonstrate any link of the shareholders, as was alleged. MIB shall now proceed to issue renewal permissions in terms of this judgment within four weeks and all other authorities shall co-operate in issuing necessary approvals. The interim order of this Court shall continue to operate until the renewal permissions are granted - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether security clearance is one of the conditions required to be fulfilled for renewal of permission under the Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines. 2. Whether denying a renewal of license and the course of action adopted by the Division Bench of the High Court violated the appellants' procedural guarantees under the Constitution. 3. Whether the order denying renewal of license is an arbitrary restriction on MBL's right to the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Summary of Judgment: Issue 1: Security Clearance for Renewal of Permission - Condition for Renewal: Security clearance is one of the conditions required to be fulfilled for renewal of permission under the Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines. - Guidelines: Paragraph 10 of the Uplinking Guidelines and Paragraph 9 of the Downlinking Guidelines stipulate that renewal of permission is subject to the condition that the channel should not have been found guilty of violating the terms and conditions of permission, including any violation of the programme and advertising code on five or more occasions. - Application of Conditions: All other conditions prescribed by the guidelines for permission, including security clearance, are applicable for renewal of permission. Issue 2: Procedural Guarantees - Principles of Natural Justice: The principles of natural justice were constitutionalized by the judgment in Maneka Gandhi, ensuring that actions violating procedural guarantees can be struck down even if non-compliance does not prejudice the outcome. - Infringement of Right to Fair Hearing: The appellants' right to a fair hearing was infringed by the unreasoned order of the MIB dated 31 January 2022, non-disclosure of relevant material to the appellants, and its disclosure solely to the court. - Proportionality Standard: The standard of proportionality was used to test the reasonableness of the procedure. The court held that confidentiality and national security are legitimate aims, but the state failed to prove that these considerations arose in the present scenario. - Public Interest Immunity: Public interest immunity claims are a less restrictive means to address the same harms as the sealed cover procedure. The sealed cover procedure was found to be ad-hoc and lacking a structured standard of review. Issue 3: Restriction on Freedom of Speech - Freedom of Press: The non-renewal of permission to operate a media channel is a restriction on the freedom of the press, which can only be reasonably restricted on the grounds stipulated in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. - Grounds for Denial: The reasons for denying security clearance to MBL, including its alleged anti-establishment stance and the alleged link of the shareholders to JEI-H, were not legitimate purposes for restricting the right of freedom of speech protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. - Lack of Evidence: There was no material to demonstrate any link of the shareholders to JEI-H. Conclusion: - Setting Aside Orders: The appeals were allowed, and the order of the MIB dated 31 January 2022 and the judgment of the High Court dated 2 March 2022 were set aside. - Directions: MIB was directed to issue renewal permissions within four weeks, and all other authorities were to cooperate in issuing necessary approvals. The interim order of the Court was to continue until the renewal permissions were granted.
|
