Landmark ruling, a win for media freedom

The SC judgement asserted that government cannot use ‘national security’ as a blanket reason for denying constitutional rights without giving specific details

The Supreme Court’s verdict lifting the central government’s ban on Malayalam channel MediaOne is a landmark decision that upholds the freedom of the media and hence the right to free speech and expression of citizens. The court has made important observations about the value of freedom and critical comments about the conduct of the government. These observations and comments are not new, but they need reiteration at a time when media freedom is under pressure. In 2020, MediaOne TV, backed by Jamaat-e-Islami, was banned for 48 hours over its coverage of the 2020 Delhi riots.

In 2022, it was taken off the air when the government refused to renew its licence citing security concerns. The Kerala High Court approved the decision after perusing material submitted by the authorities in a sealed envelope, denying the petitioners any opportunity to know the reasons for the ban. The Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud has now struck down the High Court’s decision and allowed the channel to resume.

Also Read | Supreme Court quashes Centre’s ban on Malayalam news channel MediaOne

The judgement has underlined some important principles that are cardinal to democracy. It has asserted that the government cannot use ‘national security’ as a blanket reason for denying constitutional rights without giving specific details, and that any restriction on free speech has to be proportional and reasonable. ‘National security’ cannot be invoked out of thin air and the government’s case needs to be accompanied by specific arguments that pass judicial muster. No right can be curtailed if there is no right to contest the curtailment. The court also held that critical views about the government and its policies cannot be considered anti-establishment, and citizens’ rights cannot be curbed just because they are against the government. This needed to be said again in a milieu in which the government identifies itself with the nation and its critics are dubbed anti-nationals. The court also did not accept the government’s view that it could collect intelligence on citizens and claim immunity from disclosure of the information in courts. This was what the government claimed in the MediaOne case.

The court’s assertion of the independence of the media flows from these ideas and principles. It has said that the media has a duty to speak truth to power and present citizens with hard facts, and a homogenised view on issues would be dangerous for democracy. These principles and ideas enunciated by the court form a robust charter for the functioning of the media in a free and democratic society. They also seek to protect the media from arbitrary and restrictive actions of governments. They are not to be confined to court orders but should be followed in letter and spirit by the government.