2020 Supreme(Ker) 323

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S. Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly, JJ.
Harish Vasudevan - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Wp(C).No.7487 of 2020(S)
Decided On : 11-03-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
Petitioner has no locus standi to challenge Exhibits-P1 and P2 orders and the vires of Rules 6(1)(c) and 6(1)(e) of Rules, 1994. Further, we are at a loss to understand as to how the petitioner could challenge Rules 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(i) of the Rules, 1994, since they were not a subject matter of consideration in the action taken by the respondent against the TV Channels. Challenge cannot be sustained

Headnote:

The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 - Section 20 (2)&(3);;The Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994- Rules 6(1)(a)(b)(c) and 6(1) (i)- Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019-The Statute confers powers on the authorised officer in public interest to prohibit any cable operator from transmitting or re-transmitting any programme or channel if, it is not in conformity with the prescribed programme code referred to in section 5 and advertisement code referred to in section 6 or if it is likely to promote, on grounds of religion, race, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, linguistic or regional groups or castes or communities or which is likely to disturb the public tranquillity. So also, Section 20 of the Act confers power to regulate or prohibit the transmission or re-transmission of any channel or programme. As per sub-section (2) of Section 20, where the Central Government thinks it necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India; or (ii) security of India; or (iii) friendly relations of India with any foreign State; or (iv) public order, decency or morality, it may, by order, regulate or prohibit the transmission or re-transmission of any channel or programme. Decisions on public order make it clear that the expression has wide connotation, and thus the provisions are enacted. Contentions that the rules and the policy guidelines are ultra vires of the Act, are liable to be rejected, since the Statute confers power to frame rules.

Statement of facts:

In response to the passage of Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, which allows fast-tracked naturalization for illegal immigrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan belonging to six religions viz., Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian, protests began all over India from December, 2019 onwards; that peaceful protests were going all over the country for about 2 months criticizing the Central Government in making religion a criteria for deciding citizenship of the country, violating the fundamental principles of secularism enshrined in the Constitution of India. On 25.02.2020, two media channels, viz., Asianet News and Media One TV had covered those riots in the north east part of Delhi and broadcasted them. Being aggrieved, respondent issued show cause notices on 28.02.2020 to both the media houses for violation of Rules 6(1)(c) and 6(1)(e) of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 and calling upon them to show cause as to why action as per the provisions of Up-linking/Down linking Guidelines, the terms and conditions of the permission granted and the provisions of Section 20 of the Cable Act should not be initiated as disclosed form the final order. The media houses furnished reply to the said notices on 3.3.2020 by stating that whatever they had broadcasted was actually correct and did not attack any particular religion or community or did not promote anti national activity, as alleged by the respondent

Finding of the court:

Petitioner has not made out any case to entertain a public interest litigation. Challenge made to the validity of Rules 6(1)(a), 6(1)(c), 6(1)(e), and 6(1)(i) of the Rules, 1994 as well as clause 5.9 of the Policy Guidelines for Up-linking of Television Channels from India, fails-The impugned Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, and the Policy Guidelines for Up-linking of Television Channels from India are consequently upheld.

Result: Writ petition is dismissed.