Wrong and unfortunate judgement: N Ram lambasts HC judgement on Media One

New Delhi: The "sealed cover" judgement made by the High Court of Kerala on the banning of Media One was an 'unfortunate' judgement that showed how much leeway 'national security' is given when it comes to infringing fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, The Hindu director N Ram said at a press meet in Delhi.

He quoted an old judgement by the Supreme Court in the case of Arun Shouire, where the SC had rejected a plea to file a counter affidavit in a 'sealed cover', which expressed the SC's general disapproval of the process of "sealed cover" jurisprudence, N Ram opined.

Noting that India had a shameful history of being ranked low in terms of press freedom and attacks on journalists, Ram said that he had never seen an attack on media freedom of this scale since the period of the Emergency under Indira Gandhi.

"This is the wider context...there are various kinds of pressures...to reward those who are providing a propaganda role for the government...and punish those who stand up for nothing more than independent journalism," he said during the press conference.

The single bench judgement's ruling that courts could have only limited powers of interference when the government invoked matters of national security was especially worrying, Ram said, quoting the court views on the Pegasus case, which he claimed was misconstrued by the Kerala HC.

"In matters of national security the scope of judicial review is limited...however, this does not mean that the state gets a free pass every time the spectre of national security is raised," Ram said, partially quoting the Pegasus order. The Kerala HC had said that judicial interference was limited to matters of right to privacy, but the Supreme Court has opined that it can be extended to media freedom as well, he argued.

He noted that while media support for Media One had been extensive, especially in the form of editorials, they had omitted a crucial fact which was the fact that Media One was representative of the minority Muslim community which, like other minorities, had come under attack in recent years.

"The attempt is to create fear...doubt...apprehensions about the role of minorities...that was done through the Citizenship Amendment Act, read along with other aggressions by the executive branch (central government)," he said, noting that this pressure on minority communities had also put pressure on rights to freedom of speech and liberty.

By the principle of proportional justice, the banning of Media One was not justified as even if the organisation had committed an error (unintentionally), the remedy was to self-regulate or provide reasonable restrictions instead of causing huge losses by shutting it down, he argued.

He expressed hope that the judgement would be struck down as there was a lack of transparency in banning a channel solely due to a sealed cover submitted by the government to the court, whereby the principles of natural justice were violated. The assault was not just on minorities but on the Constitution itself, which is why everyone had to speak up about it, he added.