MADHYAMAM BROADCASTING LIMITED versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 595 · Decided: 05-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 25 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
595
MADHYAMAM BROADCASTING LIMITED
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8129 of 2022)
APRIL 05, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND
HIMA KOHLI, J.]
Constitution of India – Art. 19(1)(a) and 19(2) – Freedom of
Speech and Expression – Freedom of Press – Reasonable Restriction
– National Security – The Union Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting (MIB) revoked the permission which it had granted
to Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited to uplink and downlink a news
and current affairs television channel called “Media One” – MIB
revoked the permission that was granted to uplink and downlink
‘Media One’ because of the denial of a security clearance –
Appellants initiated proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution before the High Court for challenging the action of
the first respondent – A Single Judge dismissed the petitions – Writ
appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court –
The High Court relied on material which was disclosed solely to the
Court in a sealed cover by the second respondent, the Union Ministry
of Home Affairs – Held: The challenge to the order of the MIB and
judgment of the High Court on procedural grounds is allowed –
The core of the principles of natural justice breathes reasonableness
into procedure – The burden is on the claimant to prove that the
procedure followed infringes upon the core of procedural
guarantees – The appellants have proved that MBL’s right to a fair
hearing has been infringed by the unreasoned order of the MIB,
and the non-disclosure of relevant material to the appellants, and
its disclosure solely to the court – The burden then shifts on the
respondents to prove that the procedure that was followed was
reasonable and in compliance with the requirements of Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution – Though confidentiality and national
security are legitimate aims for the purpose of limiting procedural
guarantees, the state has been unable to prove that these
considerations arise in the present factual scenario – A blanket
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 595 : 2023 INSC 324
595
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
immunity from disclosure of all investigative reports cannot be
granted – The validity of the claim of involvement of national security
considerations must be assessed on the test of (i) whether there is
material to conclude that the non-disclosure of information is in the
interest of national security; and (ii) whether a reasonable prudent
person would draw the same inference from the material on record–
Even assuming that non-disclosure is in the interest of confidentiality
and national security, the means adopted by the respondents do not
satisfy the other prongs of the proportionality standard – The non-
disclosure of a summary of the reasons for the denial of security
clearance to MBL, which constitutes the core irreducible minimum
of procedural guarantees, does not satisfy the suitability prong –
The challenge to the order of MIB is allowed on substantive grounds
– The non-renewal of permission to operate a media channel is a
restriction on the freedom of the press which can only be reasonably
restricted on the grounds stipulated in Article 19(2) of the
Constitution – The reasons for denying a security clearance to MBL,
that is, its alleged anti-establishment stance and the alleged link of
the shareholders to JEI-H, are not legitimate purposes for the
restriction of the right of freedom of speech protected under Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution – In any event, there was no material to
demonstrate any link of the shareholders, as was alleged.
National Security – Concerns of – Held: Do not permit an
absolute abrogation of the principles of natural justice – The mere
involvement of issues concerning national security would not
preclude the state’s duty to act fairly – However, the principle of
natural justice may be excluded when on the facts of the case,
national security concerns outweigh the duty of fairness – Thus,
national security is one of the few grounds on which the right to a
reasonable procedural guarantee may be restricted – If the State
discards its duty to act fairly, then it must be justified before the
court on the facts of the case – Firstly, the State must satisfy the
Court that national security concerns are involved – Secondly, the
State must satisfy the court that an abrogation of the principle(s) of
natural justice is justified – These two standards that have emerged
from the jurisprudence a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.