The court upheld the revocation of a media channel's license based on national security considerations, affirming that while natural justice principles are important, they may be limited in such contexts.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(a) - Freedom of Press - It is essential for any democratic society; restrictions may apply for national security. (Paras 11, 26)

(B) Policy Guidelines for Uplinking of TV Channels - Security clearance mandatory for renewal of licence; failure to observe procedural fairness does not invalidate decisions directly related to national security. (Paras 13, 24, 36)

(C) Judicial Review - While the courts should respect the domain of national security, they can review the justification for state actions. (Paras 30, 34)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a media company, challenges the revocation of its licence for a news channel purportedly based on national security concerns without an opportunity for a hearing. The company contends the decision violated principles of natural justice affecting many employees.

Findings of Court:
The denial of the renewal of the license was backed by serious inputs from intelligence agencies; as such, the court found no grounds to interfere.

Issues: Whether the revocation of the media channel’s license was justified without a hearing and in the context of national security.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that although principles of natural justice are paramount, they yield to national security considerations, highlighting that the reasons for such administrative actions should be substantiated.

Result: The writ petitions fail and are dismissed.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

W.P.(C) No.3265/2022 has been filed by a Company that owns Media One TV Channel. The petitioner- Company seeks to call for the records leading to Ext.P4 order whereby the permission granted to the petitioner- Company to uplink and downlink a News and Current Affairs TV Channel, namely Media One, is revoked with immediate effect. The petitioner seeks to direct respondents 1 and 2 to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing an order revoking the permission.

2. W.P.(C) No.3670/2022 has been filed by a Trade Union of Working Journalists. Petitioners 2 and 3 in the writ petition are Members and office bearers of the 1st petitioner- Trade Union. They are working in the 3rd respondent- Company, which is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3265/2022. W.P.(C) No.3663/2022 has been filed by Editor, Senior Web Designer and Senior Cameraman of the 3rd respondent- Company. The petitioners in both these writ petitions also challenge the order passed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting cancelling the licence granted to the 3rd respondent-Company. The parties and exhibits are referred in this judgment as they are arrayed/marked in W.P.(C)

No.3265/2022.

3. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3265/2022 submits that on 05.01.2022, the 1st respondent-Union of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued Ext.P1 show-casue notice to the petitioner stating that in consideration of national security and public order, the Government intends to revoke the licence/permission granted to the petitioner-Company. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 reply dated 18.01.2022. In Ext.P2, the petitioner stated that the petitioner is not informed of the reasons why security clearance is denied and there shall not be any order revoking the licence without affording an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner further submitted that the Channel is not involved in any sort of anti-national activity and therefore considering the fact that there is huge investment in the business, Ext.P1 may be withdrawn. However, on 31.01.2022, the 1st respondent, as per a cryptic order, Ext.P4, revoked the permission of the petitioner with immediate effect and ordered to remove the petitioner from the list of permitted Channels. Ext.P4 order is under challenge.

4. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3663/2022 submittd that they are professionals working in the 3rd respondent- Company (petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3265/2022) and there are about 320 employees who are working in the Channel in various capacities. If the licence granted to the Company is not renewed, the employees will be put to untold hardship. The Kerala Union of Working Journalists and others, who are the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3670/2022, also made similar submissions.

5. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India contested the writ petitions filing a statement. The ASGI submitted that the writ petitions filed by the employees of the media company and the Kerala Union of Working Journalists are not maintainable. The ASGI submitted that uplinking and downlinking of Private Satellite TV Channels in India are governed by the policy guidelines issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The petitioner-Company had applied for permission for one news Channel “Media One” on 19.05.2010. By letter dated 30.09.2011, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has permitted the petitioner- Company to uplink and downlink News and Current Affairs TV Channel, namely “Media One”, as per Annexure-R1(c). In the year 2012, the Company applied for licence to uplink and downlink a Non-News TV Channel “Media One Life” and News TV Channel “Media One Global”. The documents submitted by the petitioner were forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on 07.01.2014. The Company applied for appointment of two new Directors.

6. Based on the Ministry of Home Affairs' clearance earlier received on 07.02.2011, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting granted permission to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document