Thread by @barandbench

[MEDIA ONE BAN]

#SupremeCourt to hear an appeal filed by Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited against the Kerala High Court decision upholding the government’s move to not renew the licence of its TV channel, Media One, on the ground of “national security and public order”

Sr Adv Dushyant Dave: there was a matter before the Supreme Court today where CJI said " i dont want sealed covers here. we dont want it."

Read story here: barandbench.com/news/please-do…

Sr Adv Dave: Security for the home ministry is not relevant for renewal of license, we have operated for 11 years.

ASG SV Raju: I want to file an affidavit and oppose interim order

Dave: they have filed before single and division bench also

Dave: We were functioning. My license was for 10 years. 2 months after my actual period expired, they allowed me to continue. They granted me downlinking in 2019 for a period of 5 years

Justice Chandrachud: Can we see what they said on affidavit before the HC

Dave cites the affidavit: It says MIB guidelines oversees the up linking and downlinking licenses.

ASG: I dont have a copy

Dave: you dont have a copy of your own affidavit?

Dave: On plain reading of guidelines it is incorrect. Security clearance is not needed for renewal of licenses. No media , publication or channel will be saved if this is accepted. everybody can be shut down tomorrow

ASG SV Raju: he is making this statement (laughs)

SC: Mr Raju you have to disclose something..

ASG: Please give me a short date and hear me. they are asking for mandatory relief. Please give me an opportunity to file an affidavit

Sr Adv Rakesh Dwivedi: this matter should be heard very urgently. My case is before Delhi HC and our license was also cancelled by MHA

Judges discuss with each other

Justice DY Chandrachud: Mr Raju you said in HC that MHA was informed that denial of security license was based on intelligence inputs, disclose the files to the. you are denying someone to run their business. what is the issue?

ASG: We will disclose it My Lord

ASG KM Natraj presents the record..

Justice Chandrachud: the division bench says too many details are not available. this is the problem

Dave: HC says nothing is on record

ASG : we will not shy away from producing records.

Dave: Heavens are not falling if my channel runs

Dave: How can a democratically elected government deny to produce records and deny freedom of speech and expression. this is completely covered by a judgment of this court. This channel is being shut down just because it is owned by minority individuals.

SC: We are averse to sealed cover jurisprudence. Do you have issues if we go through the record now..

ASG Natraj: They have carried on a YouTube channel which criticized the single bench judge. Institution is itself under danger under this petitioner.

SC: Let us have some light and not heat. There is complete freedom to criticize the judgment of courts.

ASG: It is against the personal conduct of judges and browbeating the judges

Dave: I condemn it though We have nothing to do about it

ASG: Youtube portal is by same media

Dave: For that you cannot shut us down

ASG: you cannot browbeat judges

Justice Chandrachud and other judges take a short break to peruse through the MHA intelligence records. says "its just for convenience and not secrecy."

Exchange in Courtroom across two platforms:

Sr Adv Dave from Court 4 hall of #SupremeCourt: you are not coming to court?

ASG Raju from virtual screen: I am in Delhi HC now. I had too many matters

Dave: Looks like virtual hearing has benefited senior lawyers

Bench resumes

Sr Adv Dave: There is a provision which I would like to draw your attention towards

SC ORDER: Challenge in these proceedings is to a judgment of Kerala HC on March 2, 2022.

SC: Petitioners had challenged orders of Union Govt dated January 31, 2022 by which permission granted to Madhyamam Broadcating foruplinking and downlinking a news current affiars channel MediaOne was revoked,

SC: During hearing before single judge of HC, two files relating to Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd, the first in relation to Mediaone life, Mediaone Global and second related to media one TV. files have not been shared with petitioners

SC: Division bench has observed that "it is true that the nature impact gravity and depth of issue is not discernible from the files, But at same time clear indication impacting the public order and security of state. Since its confidential MHA file we are not expressing..."

SC: HC had also observed that "even though too many details are not available in files produced before us..." In pursuance of the previous order of this court on March 10 issuing notice, Mr KM Natraj and SV Raju ASGs appear on behalf of centre

SC: Files were produced in court. Mr Dave while criticizing the approach of HC in not disclosing the files. We are of the view that the case of grant of interim relief has been made out.

BREAKING: SC: We order and direct that Union Govt order revoking security clearance to Madhyaman Broadcasting Ltd stands STAYED. Petitioner be allowed to run #MediaOne on the same basis channel was being operated before security clearance was revoked

SC: A counter affidavit be filed in the next 2 weeks, Whether the contents of these files can be disclosed to the petitioners or not is expressly kept open for final disposal. Counter to be filed on or before March 26, 2022

Raju: permission was over due to the time. Revocation has nothing to do with renewal. License was renewed in September, 2021 and then it was cancelled

SC: But you allowed them to operate even after term came to an end. Thus it is clear that denial of permission to continue broadcasting is in pursuance to revocation order.

Raju: The court directed so..

SC: no the order came on January 31, 2022 and you allowed them to continue

Justice Kant: renewal was not cancelled because license was denied.

Justice Chandrachud: Keep the files in court for next date of hearing.

Dave: please include a line that sealed cover jurisprudence is something you don't support

SC: This order is not an expression on tenability of petitioner to access the files which is kept open before the court.

To Dave: there are sensitive issues like Child Sexual Abuse etc where files cannot be disclosed and that is a small area we have carved

Justice Kant: we have only perused the record and its different from sealed cover jurisprudence.
#mediaone

Justice Chandrachud: Mr Dave, Mr Dwivedi please assist us on the question of sealed cover

Sr Adv Dwivedi: you may appoint us an amicus curiae

Dave: I dont want an amicus in my case

Justice Chandrachud laughs

DYC J: : AG was appearing in our court and this question came up with regard to cross border security. He said that he does not want files to be perused said he has no problem with the counsel for the petitioner perusing it

Sr Adv Hufeza Ahmadi refers to the judgement of Anuradha Bhasin Case

Hearing ends