MediaOne to remain shut: HC finds Centre's security reasons valid

Kochi: Kerala High Court has dismissed a petition filed by MediaOne channel against the Union government's decision not to renew the broadcasting licence for security reasons.

Justice Nagaresh who heard the plea said, "I have gone through the files of the MHA. MHA has called for various intelligence agencies. Based on the inputs from these agencies, it has been decided not to renew the security clearance."

MediaOne, a popular Malayalam news channel, filed a petition in the Kerala High Court demanding the revocation of a notice the Union Ministry of Info & Broadcasting had issued denying it licence for the broadcasting of the channel.

The channel said that the Information & Broadcasting Ministry had issued a show-cause notice on 5 January, stating that the channel's licence has been revoked for security reasons.

In response to this notice, the company had requested not to proceed with the notice without affording an opportunity of hearing and that they were not informed of the reasons why the security clearance was denied.

However, the Ministry allegedly proceeded to revoke the permission granted to the petitioner with immediate effect.

ASGI submitted that the writ petitions filed by the Union and the employees were not maintainable since uplinking and downlinking of television channels are governed by Policy Guidelines.

In 2012, the company applied for uplink and downlink for a new channel. The documents were forwarded to the Home Ministry. Based on the MHA clearance received on 7 February 2011, the Ministry of Info & Broadcasting granted permission to MediaOne Live.

Ministry of I&B rejected the application for renewal of licence. The MHA had sufficient grounds to deny security clearance. Therefore, impugned orders are amply justified, contended the ASGI.

Senior Counsel S. Sreekumar submitted that the petitioner company had applied for permission for MediaOne in 2010 and obtained permission in 2011 and security clearance was given as well. The downlinking permission was valid till 2021.

Both the uplinking and downlinking permissions were valid till 2021. On expiry, an application for renewal was submitted. Petitioner was not aware of the reasons for denial of clearance.

Senior Advocate also pointed out that it was issued with a show cause notice in connection with Delhi riots reporting but that the petitioner submitted a prompt reply to this.

However, a prohibitory order was issued, which was lifted the next day. Sr counsel submitted that this showed the vindictive attitude of the GoI and argued that Article 19(1)(a) was infringed.

Sr Counsel also submitted that Ex-Army Men's Protection v. UoI and Digicable case, which were relied on by the respondents, the security clearance was granted for 5 years.

Sr counsel pointed out that UoI may decline information only on constitutional safeguards. However, it is incumbent on the State to specifically plead such statutory immunity and prove the same.

Sr Counsel Jaju Babu representing the petitioners in the other writ petitions urged that revoking the permission granted w/o granting an opportunity of hearing is highly arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.

He argued that the order denying renewal has no legal backing and that the respondents have not cited any violation of permit conditions.

Sr Counsel added that respondents should have resorted to some dispute resolution mechanism before immediate revocation.

In the totality of the circumstances, it was argued that the denial of the application of renewal cannot be sustained.

Sr counsel submitted that it offends employees' rights under the Constitution and argued that without any statutory backing if the GoI cancels licence granted to the company, that would violate the fundamental rights of petitioners.

ASGI on the other hand argued that the element of responsibility should be practised by the journalists and the press and that public order and morality should be safeguarded.

ASGI argued that the grant of permission to the petitioner is subject to the issuance of security clearance from the concerned ministry and that since this was not granted, the Ministry was competent to deny renewal of its licence.

ASGI also submitted that national security is not a matter of law, but a question of policy.

Broadcasting is considered an integral part of freedom of speech and expression in India. Uplinking and downlinking of channels are governed by the policy guidelines framed by the ministry.

It's clear that at the time of renewal other terms and conditions be applicable for both uplinking and downlinking., such as the requirement of a security clearance.

So the petitioner's contention that security clearance is a one-time affair cannot be accepted.

But the right under Article 19(1) has certain exceptions, which empower the state to impose reasonable restrictions.

The imposition of restriction is limited to 'reasonable' ones and is limited to sovereignty, integrity and security of the country.