Dangerous for press freedom

The recent decision of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to cancel the broadcasting rights of a Malayalam news channel MediaOne, and its endorsement by the Kerala High Court, will have serious implications for freedom of expression and the rights of the media. The channel had been denied renewal of its licence last month. A single-judge bench of the High Court endorsed the decision saying that it was satisfied that the government had reasons relating to national security to support its decision. The government had told the court that the decision was taken on the basis of intelligence reports. These reports, naturally, are not in the public domain.

The decision raises several disturbing questions. The channel is considered to be backed by the Jamaat-e-Islami. It has not been told that any of its programmes or telecasts had violated national security or posed a threat to it. The judge said that preserving national security is an executive function and the legislature and judiciary have only “complementary roles”. The ruling relied on an ancient text called Atri Samhita for this conclusion, and not the Constitution. It also said that the Supreme Court’s observation, made in the Pegasus case, that the government cannot get a free pass in the name of national security is not relevant in this case. It said the observation was applicable only to the right to privacy and not freedom of expression. This is a questionable interpretation.

The consequences are clear: If the government submits to the court some information in a sealed cover, as it did in this case, the matter will be decided between the two. The channel in this case was not told what its offence was, and had no opportunity to defend itself. The court said that the principles of natural justice and interference by courts have a “very limited role” in such cases. “Once the State is of the stand that the issue involves national security, the court shall not disclose the reasons to the affected party,” it added. There have been temporary bans on channels in the past but this is the first time a channel is ordered to shut down permanently without giving a reason. Was the decision proportional to the offence, if at all there was one? This is important because the fundamental right to freedom of expression is at stake in the case. The procedure adopted by the government and the stance of the court make every media institution vulnerable. The government can close down any newspaper or TV channel by telling the court that it is a threat to national security, without producing any evidence. But the citizen’s right to expression and media freedom should not be just a matter between the government and the courts.