SC stays Centre’s ban on MediaOne channel

The ban on Malayalam news channel MediaOne on alleged national security concerns was temporarily lifted by the Supreme Court on Tuesday, almost six weeks after the channel’s license was revoked by the central government.

A bench of justices Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath examined confidential material prepared by government against the channel in revoking security clearance that had led to a blanket withdrawal of its uplinking and downlinking licenses, before providing interim relief to petitioner Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd, the channel’s owner.

“At the present stage, the prayer for interim relief has been made out by the petitioner,” the judges said in the order. “Having due regard to the contents of the files produced by the respondent (central government), the order of the Union government revoking security clearance granted to petitioner shall remain stayed pending further orders.”

The court had on March 10 directed the government to produce all the relevant files. Additional solicitor general KM Nataraj appeared with the home ministry files containing intelligence inputs against the channel in a sealed cover.

The Kerala high court on March 2 had dismissed the channel’s petition challenging the

Pban by relying on these confidential files.

Madhyamam Broadcasting, represented by advocates Dushyant Dave and Huzefa Ahmadi, objected to the presenting of materials in a sealed cover, as that had earlier resulted in an order being passed without it being able to examine the rationale behind the ban.

“If this is allowed, no channel or media house in this country can be safe,” Dave told the top court on Tuesday.

The security clearance was granted once to the channel, and for renewal of its uplinking license, which fell due in November 2021, further security clearance was not needed, the lawyer said. “For six weeks we are shut down simply because the channel is run by members of the minority community. If my channel runs, heavens will not fall. It cannot be so serious a national security threat that I can make the government fall,” Dave argued.

The channel employs nearly 350 staff and monthly salary bills to the tune of Rs 83 lakh were required to be paid, its lawyers said.

“The issue as to whether content of files should be disclosed to the petitioner to enable them pursue their challenge is kept open and will be decided before the petition is taken up for final disposal,” the bench said, posting further hearing on the matter next month.

During the hearing, justice Chandrachud said, “I am averse to sealed cover jurisprudence” and told the Centre: “You have to disclose to them something.”

Even as the court examined the files in the sealed cover, it said: “Perusal of files by court to the exclusion of the petitioner is not an expression of this court on the tenability of contention of the petitioner that they will be entitled to inspect the files, which will be open to them at the time of final disposal.”

Additional solicitor general SV Raju, appearing for the Centre, objected to the court’s order allowing the channel to resume operations. The license of the channel expired in September and is due for renewal, he held.

The stay on revocation of security clearance does not automatically result in renewal of the channel’s license, which has to be separately applied for, Raju argued.

Having due regard to the contents of the files, the order (Centre’s) revoking security clearance shall remain stayed pending further orders

SC BENCH