‘Natural Justice’ and ‘Proportionality’: Why Supreme Court ruled in Media One’s favour

Timeline of the case

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, on January 31, 2022, refused to renew the broadcast license of the Malayalam channel MediaOne on the ground that the Ministry of Home Affairs had declined to grant it security clearance while considering its request for renewal of license.

The MHA had cited alleged links between the channel’s promoters Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited and Jamaat-e-Islami Hind for denying the security clearance to Media One. Following this, the channel was taken off the air.

This led to the channel approaching the Kerala High Court against the Centre’s action. During the hearing in the HC, the Centre told HC that the decision to revoke the license was based on grounds of national security. On February 9, 2022, a single bench of the HC upheld the ban on the channel. On appeal, a division bench of the High Court, on March 2, upheld the order of the single judge.

However, on March 15, last year, the Apex Court stayed the Kerala High Court order and allowed the channel to resume operations. In the hearing before the SC, the channels’ promoters argued that they were not given a chance to defend themselves as the national security reasons cited to deny renewal of their license were submitted to the HC in a sealed cover.

Further, it was contended that the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, which includes press freedom, can be restricted only on the grounds enumerated under Article 19(2) and there was no allegation that the channel violated the Programme and Advertising Code prescribed under the Cable Television Networking (Regulation) Act 1995 and the 1994 Rules.

In March 2022, the SC granted Media One temporary relief, and permitted it to resume operations.

Why the apex court ruled in favour of Media One

In its 134-page judgment, the Supreme Court upheld Media One’s appeal on two procedural grounds, namely, principles of natural justice and proportionality.

Principles of Natural Justice

The bench allowed the challenge to the order of the MIB and judgment of the High Court on account of the principles of natural justice constitutionalized by its judgment in its 1978 ruling in “Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India”. The Court observed that “that there is an inherent value in securing compliance with the principles of natural justice independent of the outcome of the case.”Actions which violate procedural guarantees can be struck down even if non-compliance does not prejudice the outcome of the case, the court held. It also stated that “the core of the principles of natural justice breathes reasonableness into procedure”. Additionally, the court clarified that in the present case, the burden is on the claimant to prove that the procedure followed infringes upon the core of procedural guarantees.

In its judgment, the court also observed that the duty to act fairly that is derived from common law is not exhaustively defined in a set of concrete principles, and courts, in India and abroad, have demonstrated considerable flexibility in the application of the principles of natural justice by fine-tuning them to different situations. However, the court also added that such a concept of natural justice “cannot be put into a ‘straitjacket formula’” and is “incapable of a ‘precise definition’”.

The Court asserted that Media One had proved that MBL’s right to a fair hearing “was infringed by the unreasoned order of the MIB dated 31 January 2022” and “the non-disclosure of relevant material to the appellants, and its disclosure solely to the court.” In such a situation, the burden shifts on the Centre to prove that the procedure that was followed was reasonable and in compliance with the requirements of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, the court noted while adding that the standard of proportionality was used to test the reasonableness of the procedure in the present case.

Finally, the court upheld its judgments in Ex-Armymen’s Protection Services and Digi Cable Network to hold that while “principles of natural justice may be excluded when on the facts of the case, national security concerns overweigh the duty of fairness”, “the state has been unable to prove that these considerations arise in the present factual scenario.” The Court added that though confidentiality and national security are legitimate aims for the purpose of limiting procedural guarantee, a “blanket immunity from disclosure of all investigative reports cannot be granted.”

Proportionality

The judgment went on to explain that the validity of the claim of involvement of national security considerations must be assessed on the test of (i) whether there is material to conclude that the non-disclosure of information is in the interest of national security; and (ii) whether a reasonable prudent person would draw the same inference from the material on record;

“Even assuming that non-disclosure is in the interest of confidentiality and national security, the means adopted by the respondents do not satisfy the other prongs of the proportionality standard,” the Court noted. The top court then reiterated that courts can assess the validity of public interest immunity claims albeit based on the “structured proportionality standard”.

On the practice of sealed covers, the court observed that “the power of courts to secure material in a sealed cover when contradistinguished with the scope of assessment of public interest immunity claims is rather unguided and ad-hoc.” Additionally, the Court said that “while public interest immunity claims conceivably impact the principles of natural justice, sealed cover proceedings infringe the principles natural justice and open justice.” It also suggested that the court could have taken the course of redacting confidential portions of the document and providing a summary of the document’s contents.

“The challenge to the order of MIB is allowed on substantive grounds. The non-renewal of permission to operate a media channel is a restriction on the freedom of the press which can only be reasonably restricted on the grounds stipulated in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The reasons for denying a security clearance to MBL, that is, its alleged antiestablishment stance and the alleged link of the shareholders to JEI-H, are not legitimate purposes for the restriction of the right of freedom of speech protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. In any event, there was no material to demonstrate any link of the shareholders, as was alleged,” the court said allowing the appeal.