'Victimised For Fair & Genuine News Reporting': MediaOne Moves Appeal Before Kerala High Court Against Centre's Ban

Malayalam news channel MediaOne has moved an appeal before the Kerala High Court a day after a single judge upheld the recent ban imposed on it by the Ministry of Information and Braodcasting.

When the matter was mentioned to be taken up today, a Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly conveyed that it can be taken up tomorrow. 

Senior Advocates Dushyant Dave and S Sreekumar will appear for the channel.

On  January 31, a few hours after the Ministry suspended the channel's telecast citing security concerns, MediaOne had approached the Single Judge with a plea. The channel owned by Jamaat-e-Islami went off the air on the same day.

However, upon hearing the preliminary arguments set out by both sides, the Judge granted the channel an interim relief allowing it to telecast, which was extended on two occasions till yesterday.

Nevertheless, while delivering the judgment, Justice N. Nagaresh held that after perusing the files from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, it has found intelligence inputs that justify the denial of security clearance to the channel.

In the appeal filed by Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd (the company running the channel), it has been pointed out that under the camouflage of national security, the Ministry has prohibited the broadcasting of a news channel that has been in existence for more than a decade.

It has also been presented that right from its inception till today, no proceedings were initiated against the channel for contravention of any law. 

The channel has also argued that the order revoking its license is not preceded by any communication, which alleges threat of national security and hence it is without any genuine cause. 

Further, it has put contended that such a move has put the lives of 350 employees of the channel in turmoil.

"It is the anguish of the appellant that the 1st respondent (Union of India) was rather in haste to cancel the license as if there was some pre-scripted agenda motivated by some ill-will. It is added that being a news channel, it may not be possible to appease the state every time and it is strong feeling of the appellant that it is victimised for its fair and genuine news reporting," reads the appeal. 

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Manoharlal Sharma Vs. Union of India(Pegasus case) where it was held that the scope of judicial review in matters pertaining to national security is limited, however it does not mean that the State gets a free pass every time the spectre of national security is raised.

The channel has also argued that the Single Judge's observation that Digi Cable Network case and Ex-Armymen's case apply in the case is not correct as the 3 bench judgment in Manoharlal's case set out the principle that the State will not get free pass under the cover up of national security.

Notably, the appellant argues that fair criticism is being choked by the government in recent times. 

"Yesteryears the government was tolerant to fair criticism, but the recent trend is alarming as it chokes the freedom of press and right to speech. Herein after no news channel will dare to broadcast any programme against the sweet will of the government as it may not be inconvenient for the government to forbid the channel by managing Intelligence reports and other materials. It is in this context relevant to note that the reliability of the referred to intelligence report is also suspected and the so called consideration by the committee, without even affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant is unconstitutional."

The appeal filed through Advocate Rakesh K also says that their crucial argument before the Single Judge was that at the time of renewal of broadcasting license, no fresh security clearance is required as the relevant provisions are Section 10 of the uplinking policy guidelines and Section 9 of the downlinking guidelines.

However, MediaOne has alleged that this aspect was not seriously considered by the Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment.

It has further been contended that the reliance placed by the single Judge on 'Atrisamhitha' is improper as the issue involved should have been adjudicated strictly in tune with the Constitutional parameters; not by quoting archaic Vedic verses.

Accordingly, it has been prayed that the Single Judge's decision be set aside, and that the ban imposed on the channel be lifted.

Case Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India