Press Has Duty To Speak Truth To Power, Critical Views On Govt Policies Can’t be Termed Anti-Establishment: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today made significant remarks on the freedom of press and its importance in a democracy.

A free press present citizens with hard facts and shines a light on the functioning of the State, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli said.

The Court was deciding Malayalam news channel MediaOne's plea against the telecast ban imposed on it by the Central government.

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had refused to renew the channel's broadcast license for want of security clearance from the Ministry of Home Affairs, which in turn had presented a sealed cover report before the Kerala High Court, where the issue was first raised, to justify its decision.

The High Court had said that though the nature and gravity of the issue is not discernible from the file, there "are clear indications that the security of the State and public order will be impacted" if permission is granted to MediaOne.

Disagreeing with this view, the Supreme Court today said there is no explanation of what weighed in the mind of the court, leading it to hold that the denial of clearance was justified despite observing that the nature and gravity of the issue is not discernible from the files. It observed,

"An independent press is vital for the robust functioning of a Democratic Republic. Its role in the democratic society is crucial, for it shines a light on the functioning of the State. The press has a duty to speak truth and present citizens with hard facts, enabling them to make choices that prepare democracy in the right direction. The restriction on the freedom of the press compels citizens to think along the same tangent. A homogenized view on issues that range from socioeconomic polity to political ideologies would pose grave dangers to democracy"

Significantly, the Ministry of Home Affairs had relied on reports of the channel on Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), National Register of Citizens (NRC), criticism of judiciary, State etc. to state that it is an anti-establishment. However, the Top Court said these are not justifiable grounds to refuse renewal of its broadcast license.

"The critical views of the channel MediaOne on policies of the government cannot be termed anti establishment. The use of such a terminology in itself represents an expectation that the press must support the establishment. The action of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting by denying your security clearance to a media channel on the basis of the views with the channel is constitutionally entitled to hold produces a chilling effect on free speech and in particularly on press freedom", it said.

Further criticising the sealed cover procedure adopted by the Centre in this case, the bench said reports by investigative agencies impact decisions on the life, liberty, and profession of individuals and entities, and to give such reports absolute immunity from disclosure is antithetical to a transparent and accountable system.

It observed,

"The mere involvement of issues concerning national security would not preclude the state's duty to act fairly. If the state discards its duty to act fairly, then it must be justified before the Court and 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 obligation of the principles of national justice is justified. These two standards that have emerged from the jurisprudence abroad resemble the proportionality standard"

The Court finally held that the action of MIB denying security clearance to a media channel over its views has a chilling effect on free speech. Criticism of governmental policy can by no such of imagination be brought within the fold of any of the ground stipulated in Article 19(2), it said.