Welcome this landmark judgement, Warmest congratulations to MediaOne: N Ram

Delhi: The Hindu Publishing Group Director N Ram welcomes the Supreme Court judgement that lifted the telecast ban on MediaOne. "Welcome this landmark Supreme Court of India's judgment authored by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud"- N Ram tweeted.

N Ram congratulates MediaOne in another tweet- "Warmest congratulations to MediaOne and to my friend, upstanding Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, and his legal team for this signal victory".

In a landmark judgment concerning media freedom in India, the Supreme Court has lifted the telecast ban on MediaOne Malayalam channel. A two-member bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli categorically ruled against the ban imposed by the Union Government a year ago.

The Court passed the order on a special leave petition filed by Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited (MBL), the owners of the channel, challenging an earlier verdict of the Kerala High Court. The High Court had turned down the company's appeal against the refusal by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to renew the channel's telecast licence for want of security clearance from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The High Court had also opined that the confidential information given by the Government in a sealed cover justified the ban. In another blow to what is called "sealed cover jurisprudence", the Supreme Court has now held that non-disclosure of reasons for denial of security clearance by MHA constitutes denial of natural justice to the MBL.

The MHA had pointed to the channel's reports on issues like Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), National Register of Citizens (NRC), its criticism of judiciary and so on to argue that it is anti-establishment. The Supreme Court held that these are not justifiable reasons for refusal to renew the telecast licence. Significantly, the apex court noted that "the press has a duty to speak truth to power and inform citizens about hard facts. The critical views of the channel against the government policies cannot be termed as anti-establishment. This view presumes that the press should always support the government. An independent press is necessary for a robust democracy. The criticism of the policies of the government cannot be stretched to mean any of the grounds under Article 19(2) which can restrict free speech."

The Court also held that non-renewal of licence for a channel is a restriction on the right to freedom of speech and can be imposed only on grounds under Article 19(2). "The alleged link of the channel's shareholders to Jamaat-e-Islami Hind is not a legitimate ground to restrict the rights of the channel. In any event, there is no material to show such link", the Court noted.