'Channel's Only Crime Is That It's Owned By Minority Community' : Dushyant Dave To Supreme Court In MediaOne Case

Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that the Malayalam news channel MediaOne, whose broadcast license was not renewed by the Centre in January this year citing security concerns, has never violated the Programmed Code. 

"There is no allegation that the channel has violated the Program Code. The only crime is that the channel is owned by people of the minority community", Dave submitted before a bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli. He added that the channel is "widely respected among Malayalees" and that renowned persons participate in the debates conducted by it.

The senior lawyer was arguing the Special Leave Petition filed by the channel management challenging the Kerala High Court's refusal to interfere with the Centre's decision to not renew the broadcast license under the Cable Television Networks(Regulation) Act 1995. While admitting the petition in March, the Supreme Court had passed an interim order permitting the telecast of the channel.

Dave argued that the lack of security clearance by the Ministry of Home Affairs cannot be a ground to not renew the license if the channel is fulfilling the conditions under the Cable TV Act and the Rules. The fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, which includes the press freedom, can be restricted only on the grounds enumerated under Article 19(2).  In this context, he contended that there is no allegation that the channel has violated the programme code or has not fulfilled the eligibility criteria. 

At this juncture, the bench asked if the argument was that security clearance cannot be insisted for a news channel at any stage. Dave clarified that his argument is that security clearance can be sought, but it should be on the basis of grounds under Article 19(2).

"What is the ground against me? Have I ever done anything to harm the integrity or sovereignty of India, have I ever committed contempt of court? Every power must be reasonably construed and exercised. Govt has to act within the confines of 19(2)", Dave argued. 

He pointed out that the High Court's decision was based on certain documents submitted by the Ministry of Home Affairs in a "sealed cover", which were not shared with the petitioners. The reasons for denying the renewal have never been communicated to the channel. The sealed cover documents were furnished to the High Court after the judgment was reserved. No counter was filed by the Union before the High Court.

Dave termed the High Court's approach of approving the Centre's decision despite saying that the the depth of the matter is not discernible to it as "disturbing and disappointing".

"With one word from Home Ministry any body can be condemned...MHA cannot say it will avoid Article 19 and Section 4(6)", Dave said.

He relied on the judgment in Arun Shourie's case (2014) 12 SCC 344 in which the Court refused to accept sealed cover documents which are not part of the affidavit. He also referred to the P Chidambaram's case in which the Court held that denial of bail on the ground of sealed cover documents is unfair. He also referred to certain foreign judgments in this regard. Reference was made to the Watergate scandal case, in which the US Supreme Court rejected the President's claim for privilege and directed to hand over the documents.

"Justice H.R. Khanna very beautifully says that fundamental rights are not fundamental because the Constitution says so. They are fundamental because they are basic human rights", Dave said.

The bench also heard Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi (for the Chief Editor of the channel Pramod Raman) and Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi (for the Kerala Union of Working Journalists). Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj addressed the Court on behalf of the Union Government.

Click Here To Read/Download Order