Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited vs Union of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 304

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, HIMA KOHLI
Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Dushyant A Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Huzefa A Ahmadi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Haris Beeran, Adv. Mr. Mushtaq Salim, Adv. Mr. Usman Ghani Khan, Adv. Mr. Azhar Assees, Adv. Mr. Ameen Hassan, Adv. Ms. Sharukh Alam, Adv. Mr. Akshat Malpani, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Pratap, AOR Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv. Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. T.S. Sabarish, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sharma, - II, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR

Judgement Key Points

The issue regarding the sealed cover is mentioned in the following paragraphs:

(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)
(!)

JUDGMENT

D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI.

This judgment consists of the following sections:

A. Facts

B. Submissions

C. Issues

D. Requirement of security clearance for renewal of permission

E. Judicial Review on procedural grounds

E. 1 Principles of natural justice: purpose and content

E. 2 Constitutionalizing principles of natural justice: the impact of Maneka Gandhi

E. 3 Standard to test reasonableness of procedure: proportionality as reasonableness

F. Infringement of MBL’s right to a fair hearing

G. Whether the infringement of MBL’s right to a fair hearing is justified

G. 1 Natural justice and national security: decisions in Digi and Ex-armymen

G.2 Application of the proportionality standard

G. 2 (a) Legitimate Goal Stage

(I) Confidentiality and IB Reports

(II) National Security

(III) Opening the sealed cover

G.2 (b) Suitability

G. 3 (c) Least restrictive means

(I) Totten claim: non-justiciability of the issue

(II) Closed Material Procedure and Special Advocates

(III) Public Interest Immunity

H. Jurisprudence on public interest immunity claims

H.1 India

H. 2 United Kingdom

H. 3 United States

H. 4 Canada

I. Proportionality standard to test public interest immunity claims

J. Public interest immunity or sealed co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 304

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, HIMA KOHLIMadhyamam Broadcasting Limited – AppellantVersusUnion of India – Respondent

Cases Referred (45)

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, HIMA KOHLI
Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent