# MADHYAMAM BROADCASTING LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** 2023 INSC 324
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-04-05
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 8129 of 2022
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Hima Kohli
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/madhyamam-broadcasting-limited-v-union-of-india-ors-36337
- **Pages:** 118

## Headnote

Constitution of India - Art. 19(1)(a) and 19(2) - Freedom of
Speech and Expression - Freedom of Press - Reasonable Restriction
- National Security - The Union Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting (MIB) revoked the permission which it had granted
to Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited to uplink and downlink a news
and current affairs television channel called "Media One" - MIB
revoked the permission that was granted to uplink and downlink
'Media One' because of the denial of a security clearance -
Appellants initiated proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution before the High Court for challenging the action of
the first respondent - A Single Judge dismissed the petitions - Writ
appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court -
The High Court relied on material which was disclosed solely to the
Court in a sealed cover by the second respondent, the Union Ministry
of Home Affairs - Held: The challenge to the order of the MIB and
judgment of the High Court on procedural grounds is allowed -
The core of the principles of natural justice breathes reasonableness
into procedure - The burden is on the claimant to prove that the
procedure followed infringes upon the core of procedural
guarantees - The appellants have proved that MBL's right to a fair
hearing has been infringed by the unreasoned order of the MIB,
and the non-disclosure of relevant material to the appellants, and
its disclosure solely to the court - The burden then shifts on the
respondents to prove that the procedure that was followed was
reasonable and in compliance with the requirements of Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution - Though confidentiality and national
security are legitimate aims for the purpose of limiting procedural
guarantees, the state has been unable to prove that these
considerations arise in the present factual scenario - A blanket
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 595 : 2023 INSC 324
595
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
immunity from disclosure of all investigative reports cannot be
granted - 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 recordEven 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 nondisclosure of a summary of the reasons for the denial of security
clearance to MBL, which constitutes the core irreducible minimum
of procedural guarantees, does not satisfy the suitability prong -
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 anti-establishment 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.
National Security - Concerns of - Held: Do not permit an
absolute abrogation of the principles of natural justice - The mere
involvement of issues concerning national security would not
preclude the state's duty to act fairly - However, the principle of
natural justice may be excluded when on the facts of the case,
national security concerns outweigh the duty of fairness - Thus,
national security is one of the few grounds on which the right to a
reasonable procedural guarantee may be restricted - If the State
discards its duty to act fairly, then it must be ju

## Text

_Characters 0–39,951 of 277,439. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39951 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
595
MADHYAMAM BROADCASTING LIMITED
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8129 of 2022)
APRIL 05, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND
HIMA KOHLI, J.]
Constitution of India - Art. 19(1)(a) and 19(2) - Freedom of
Speech and Expression - Freedom of Press - Reasonable Restriction
- National Security - The Union Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting (MIB) revoked the permission which it had granted
to Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited to uplink and downlink a news
and current affairs television channel called "Media One" - MIB
revoked the permission that was granted to uplink and downlink
'Media One' because of the denial of a security clearance -
Appellants initiated proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution before the High Court for challenging the action of
the first respondent - A Single Judge dismissed the petitions - Writ
appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court -
The High Court relied on material which was disclosed solely to the
Court in a sealed cover by the second respondent, the Union Ministry
of Home Affairs - Held: The challenge to the order of the MIB and
judgment of the High Court on procedural grounds is allowed -
The core of the principles of natural justice breathes reasonableness
into procedure - The burden is on the claimant to prove that the
procedure followed infringes upon the core of procedural
guarantees - The appellants have proved that MBL's right to a fair
hearing has been infringed by the unreasoned order of the MIB,
and the non-disclosure of relevant material to the appellants, and
its disclosure solely to the court - The burden then shifts on the
respondents to prove that the procedure that was followed was
reasonable and in compliance with the requirements of Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution - Though confidentiality and national
security are legitimate aims for the purpose of limiting procedural
guarantees, the state has been unable to prove that these
considerations arise in the present factual scenario - A blanket
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 595 : 2023 INSC 324
595
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
immunity from disclosure of all investigative reports cannot be
granted - 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 recordEven 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 nondisclosure of a summary of the reasons for the denial of security
clearance to MBL, which constitutes the core irreducible minimum
of procedural guarantees, does not satisfy the suitability prong -
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 anti-establishment 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.
National Security - Concerns of - Held: Do not permit an
absolute abrogation of the principles of natural justice - The mere
involvement of issues concerning national security would not
preclude the state's duty to act fairly - However, the principle of
natural justice may be excluded when on the facts of the case,
national security concerns outweigh the duty of fairness - Thus,
national security is one of the few grounds on which the right to a
reasonable procedural guarantee may be restricted - If the State
discards its duty to act fairly, then it must be justified before the
court on the facts of the case - Firstly, the State must satisfy the
Court that national security concerns are involved - Secondly, the
State must satisfy the court that an abrogation of the principle(s) of
natural justice is justified - These two standards that have emerged
from the jurisprudence abroad resemble the proportionality standard
- The first test resembles the legitimate aim prong, and the second
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
597
test of justification resembles the necessity and the balancing prongs
- It is not sufficient for the State to identify its purpose in broad
conceptual terms such as national security and public order - Rather,
it is imperative for the State to prove through the submission of
cogent material that non-disclosure is in the interest of national
security - It is the Court's duty to assess if there is sufficient material
for forming such an opinion - A claim cannot be made out of thin
air without material backing for such a conclusion - The Court
must determine if the State makes the claim in a bona fide manner -
The Court must assess the validity of the claim of purpose by
determining (i) whether there is material to conclude that the nondisclosure of the information is in the interest of national security;
and (ii) whether a reasonable prudent person would arrive at the
same conclusion based on the material - The court allows due
deference to the State to form its opinion but reviews the opinion on
limited grounds of whether there is nexus between the material and
the conclusion - The Court cannot second-guess the judgment of
the State that the purpose identified would violate India's national
security - It is the executive wing and not the judicial wing that has
the knowledge of India's geo-political relationships to assess if an
action is in the interest of India's national security - Natural Justice.
Investigative agencies - Reports of - Held: The reports of
the intelligence agencies are not merely fact-finding reports - To
argue that reports of the intelligence agencies may contain
confidential information is one thing but to argue that the all such
reports are confidential is another - Such an argument is misplaced
and cannot be accepted on the touchstone of constitutional values
- The reports by investigative agencies impact decisions on the life,
liberty, and profession of individuals and entities, and to give such
reports absolute immunity from disclosure is antithetical to a
transparent and accountable system - A blanket immunity from
disclosure of all investigative reports cannot be granted.
Practice and Procedure - Disclosure of Relevant Material -
Open Justice - Sealed cover procedure - Effect of - Less Restrictive
Means - Public interest immunity claim - Suggestive Course of Action
- Held: Sealed cover procedures violate both principles of natural
justice and open justice - When relevant material is disclosed in a
sealed cover, there are two injuries that are perpetuated - First, the
MADHYAMAM BROADCASTING LIMITED v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
598
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
documents are not available to the affected party - Second, the
documents are relied upon by the opposite party (which is most
often the State) in the course of the arguments, and the court arrives
at a finding by relying on the material - In such a case, the affected
party does not have any recourse to legal remedies because it would
be unable to (dis)prove any inferences from the material before the
adjudicating authority - This form of adjudication perpetuates a
culture of secrecy and opaqueness, and places the judgment beyond
the reach of challenge - The affected party would be unable to
"contradict errors, identify omissions, challenge the credibility of
informants or refute false allegations" - The right to seek judicial
review which has now been read into Arts. 14 and 21 is restricted -
A corresponding effect of the sealed cover procedure is a nonreasoned order - If the purpose could be realised effectively by
public interest immunity proceedings or any other less restrictive
means, then the sealed cover procedure should not be adopted -
The court should undertake an analysis of the possible procedural
modalities that could be used to realise the purpose, and the means
that are less restrictive of the procedural guarantees must be adopted
- The courts could take the course of redacting confidential portions
of the document and providing a summary of the contents of the
document to fairly exclude materials after a successful public interest
immunity claim.
Practice and Procedure - Difference between sealed cover
procedure and public interest immunity claims - Held: One crucial
difference between the sealed cover procedure and public interest
immunity claims is that in the former, the court relies on the material
that is disclosed in a sealed cover in the course of the proceedings,
as opposed to the latter where the documents are completely removed
from the proceedings and both the parties and the adjudicator cannot
rely on such material - The courts assess the validity of public
interest immunity claims, which address the same harms as the sealed
cover procedure, based on the structured proportionality standard
- 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 - The standard of
review that is used by the courts in public interest immunity claims
and the lack of such a standard in sealed cover proceedings to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
599
protect procedural safeguards indicates that public interest immunity
claims constitute less restrictive means - Additionally, while public
interest immunity claims conceivably impact the principles of natural
justice, sealed cover proceedings infringe the principles natural
justice and open justice.
Practice and Procedure - Public interest immunity claim -
Held: While Public interest immunity claim is a less restrictive means,
the dilution of procedural guarantees while hearing the claim cannot
be ignored by the Court - The court has a duty to consider factors
such as the relevance of the material to the case of the applicant
while undertaking the proportionality standard to test the public
interest immunity claim.
Media - Press - Role and independence of - Held: An
independent press is vital for the robust functioning of a democratic
republic - Its role in a democratic society is crucial for it shines a
light on the functioning of the state - The press has a duty to speak
truth to power, and present citizens with hard facts enabling them to
make choices that propel democracy in the right direction - The
restriction on the freedom of the press compels citizens to think along
the same tangent - A homogenised view on issues that range from
socio-economic polity to political ideologies would pose grave
dangers to democracy - On facts, the critical views of the Channel,
Media-One on policies of the government cannot be termed, 'antiestablishment' - The use of such a terminology in itself, represents
an expectation that the press must support the establishment - The
action of the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB)
by denying a security clearance to a media channel on the basis of
the views which the channel is constitutionally entitled to hold
produces a chilling effect on free speech, and in particular on press
freedom - Criticism of governmental policy can by no stretch of
imagination be brought within the fold of any of the grounds
stipulated in Article 19(2) - Constitution of India - Art.19(2).
Policy - Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
(MIB) - Policy Guidelines for Uplinking of Television Channels
from India - Paragraph 10.4 of the Uplinking Guidelines as
modified by the 'permission letter' indicates that the Union Ministry
of Home Affairs (MHA) could deny security clearance on the
grounds of national security and public order - Thus, according to
MADHYAMAM BROADCASTING LIMITED v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
600
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
the Uplinking and Downlinking guidelines, security clearance from
MHA is one of the conditions that is required to be fulfilled for
renewal of permission for Uplinking and Downlinking of news
channels.
Doctrines / Principles - Natural Justice - Requirement of
reasoned order - Held: The principles of natural justice ensure
that justice is not only done but it is seen to be done as well - A
reasoned order is one of the fundamental requirements of fair
administration - A non-reasoned order perpetuates the nonapplication of judicial mind in assessing the veracity of the inputs
- The nexus of the reasons to the order cannot be adjudicated upon
if the reasons are not disclosed.
Words and Phrases - Expression "national security" -
Meaning of - Held: The expression national security does not have
a fixed meaning - While courts have attempted to conceptually
distinguish national security from public order, it is impossible (and
perhaps unwise) to lay down a text-book definition of the expression
which can help the courts decide if the factual situation is covered
within the meaning of the phrase - The phrase derives its meaning
from the context .
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The appeals are allowed and the order of the
MIB dated 31 January 2022 and the judgment of the High Court
dated 2 March 2022 are set aside. The findings are summarized
as follows: (i) Security clearance is one of the conditions required
to be fulfilled for renewal of permission under Uplinking and
Downlinking Guidelines; (ii) The challenge to the order of the
MIB and judgment of the High Court on procedural grounds is
allowed for the following reasons: (a) The principles of natural
justice were constitutionalised by the judgement of this Court in
Maneka Gandhi. The effect is that the courts have recognised
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 core of the principles of natural justice breathes
reasonableness into procedure. The burden is on the claimant to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
601
prove that the procedure followed infringes upon the core of
procedural guarantees; (b) The appellants have proved that
MBL's right to a fair hearing has been 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. The burden then shifts on the respondents 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 standard of proportionality has been used to
test the reasonableness of the procedure. (c) The judgments of
this court in Ex-Armymen's Protection Services and Digi Cable
Network held that the principles of natural justice may be excluded
when on the facts of the case, national security concerns
overweigh the duty of fairness; (d) Though confidentiality and
national security are legitimate aims for the purpose of limiting
procedural guarantees, the state has been unable to prove that
these considerations arise in the present factual scenario. A
blanket immunity from disclosure of all investigative reports
cannot be granted; (e) 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; (f) 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
nondisclosure of a summary of the reasons for the denial of security
clearance to MBL, which constitutes the core irreducible
minimum of procedural guarantees, does not satisfy the suitability
prong; (g) The courts assess the validity of public interest
immunity claims, which address the same harms as the sealed
cover procedure, based on the structured proportionality
standard. 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. The
standard of review that is used by the courts in public interest
immunity claims and the lack of such a standard in sealed cover
proceedings to protect procedural safeguards indicates that public
MADHYAMAM BROADCASTING LIMITED v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
interest immunity claims constitute less restrictive means.
Additionally, while public interest immunity claims conceivably
impact the principles of natural justice, sealed cover proceedings
infringe the principles natural justice and open justice; (h) The
courts could take the course of redacting confidential portions of
the document and providing a summary of the contents of the
document to fairly exclude materials after a successful public
interest immunity claim; and (iii) 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. MIB shall now proceed to issue renewal permissions in
terms of this judgment within four weeks and all other authorities
shall co-operate in issuing necessary approvals. The interim order
of this Court shall continue to operate until the renewal
permissions are granted. [Paras 170 and 174][708-E-H; 709-AH; 710-A-F; 711-H; 712-A]
2. An administrative action can be challenged on the ground
of a violation of fundamental rights. Following the expansion of
the content of the right to equality under Article 14 to include
the guarantee against arbitrariness, the grounds for judicial review
of administrative action have expanded. Administrative action is
judicially reviewable on the grounds of (i) unreasonableness or
irrationality; (ii) illegality; and (iii) procedural impropriety. In
addition to the above grounds, administrative action can be
reviewed on the ground of proportionality if it affects freedoms
that are guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The principle of natural justice that is derived from common law
has two primary facets- Audi Alterum Partem and Nemo Judex In
Causa Sua. Audi Alterum Partem encapsulates the rule of fair
hearing. Nemo Judex In Causa Sua encapsulates the rule against
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
603
bias, that is, no person should be a judge of their own case. [Paras
31 and 32][630-H; 631-A-C]
3. The duty to act fairly that is derived from common law is
not exhaustively defined in a set of concrete principles. Courts,
both in India and abroad, have demonstrated considerable
flexibility in the application of the principles of natural justice by
fine tuning them to situational variations. This Court has observed
earlier that the concept of natural justice cannot be put into a
'straitjacket formula' and that it is incapable of a 'precise
definition'. Courts have undertaken an ends-based reasoning to
test if the action violates the common law principle of natural
justice. The party alleging a violation of a principle of natural
justice has to prove that the administrative action violated the
principles of natural justice and that non compliance with natural
justice prejudiced the party. The courts, while assessing
prejudice, determine if compliance of the principles of natural
justice could have benefitted the party in securing a just outcome.
[Para 42][635-B-D]
4. Reasonableness is a normative concept that is identified
by an evaluation of the relevant considerations and balancing them
in accordance with their weight. It is value oriented and not
purpose oriented. That is why the courts have been more than
open in identifying that the action is unreasonable rather than
identifying if the action is reasonable. This is also why the courts
while assessing the reasonableness of limitations on fundamental
rights have adopted a higher standard of scrutiny in the form of
proportionality. The proportionality analysis assesses both the
object and the means utilised, which are pertinent requirements
while testing an infringement of fundamental rights. This Court
has held that the proportionality standard can be used to assess
the validity of administrative action infringing upon fundamental
freedoms. The standard of proportionality must be used to assess
the reasonableness of the limitation of procedural rights as well.
The courts have to undeniably undertake a balancing exercise
while deciding if the limitation on the right is valid. [Paras 4951][639-D; 640-B-C, D]
5. On the facts of the case, MIB has denied to disclose
even the summary of the reasoning denying security clearance.
MADHYAMAM BROADCASTING LIMITED v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
This has necessarily left MBL with no remedy. The freedom of
press which is protected under Article 19(1)(a) has effectively
been trumped without providing them with an effective and
reasonable avenue to challenge the decision. This infringes upon
the core of a right to fair hearing. The appellants have proved
that the disclosure of reasons is necessary for them to have a
reasonable hearing. The reply to the show cause notice and the
writ petition challenging the validity of the revocation order also
indicate that the appellants have been constrained in a situation
where they are unable to effectively lay a challenge against the
decision. MHA disclosed the material forming the opinion for
denying of security clearance solely to the High Court. The High
Court instead of deciding if any other less restrictive but equally
effective means could have been employed, straight away received
the material in a sealed cover without any application of mind. It
is now an established principle of natural justice that relevant
material must be disclosed to the affected party. This rule ensures
that the affected party is able to effectively exercise their right to
appeal. When the state government claims non-disclosure on the
ground of public interest under Section 124 of the Evidence Act,
the material is removed from the trial itself. As opposed to this
method, when relevant material is disclosed in a sealed cover,
there are two injuries that are perpetuated. First, the documents
are not available to the affected party. Second, the documents are
relied upon by the opposite party (which is most often the state)
in the course of the arguments, and the court arrives at a finding
by relying on the material. In such a case, the affected party does
not have any recourse to legal remedies because it would be
unable to (dis)prove any inferences from the material before the
adjudicating authority. This form of adjudication perpetuates a
culture of secrecy and opaqueness, and places the judgment
beyond the reach of challenge. The affected party would be unable
to "contradict errors, identify omissions, challenge the credibility
of informants or refute false allegations". The right to seek judicial
review which has now been read into Articles 14 and 21 is
restricted. A corresponding effect of the sealed cover procedure
is a non-reasoned order. [Paras 57-59][643-F; 644-A-G]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
605
6. National security is one of the few grounds on which the
right to a reasonable procedural guarantee may be restricted.
The mere involvement of issues concerning national security
would not preclude the state's duty to act fairly. If the State
discards its duty to act fairly, then it must be justified before the
court on the facts of the case. Firstly, the State must satisfy the
Court that national security concerns are involved. Secondly, the
State must satisfy the court that an abrogation of the principle(s)
of natural justice is justified. These two standards that have
emerged from the jurisprudence abroad resemble the
proportionality standard. The first test resembles the legitimate
aim prong, and the second test of justification resembles the
necessity and the balancing prongs. [Para 75][656-D-F]
7. A claim cannot be made out of thin air without material
backing for such a conclusion. The Court must determine if the
State makes the claim in a bona fide manner. The Court must
assess the validity of the claim of purpose by determining (i)
whether there is material to conclude that the non-disclosure of
the information is in the interest of national security; and (ii)
whether a reasonable prudent person would arrive at the same
conclusion based on the material. The reasonable prudent person
standard which is one of the lowest standards to test the
reasonableness of an action is used to test national security claims
by courts across jurisdictions because of their deferential
perception towards such claims. This is because courts recognise
that the State is best placed to decide if the interest of national
security would be served. The court allows due deference to the
State to form its opinion but reviews the opinion on limited
grounds of whether there is nexus between the material and the
conclusion. The Court cannot second-guess the judgment of the
State that the purpose identified would violate India's national
security. It is the executive wing and not the judicial wing that
has the knowledge of India's geo-political relationships to assess
if an action is in the interest of India's national security. [Para
84][661-E-G; 662-A-B]
8. The respondents by not providing a reasoned order
denying the renewal of license, not disclosing the relevant
MADHYAMAM BROADCASTING LIMITED v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
606
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
material, and by disclosing the material only to the court in a
sealed cover have violated the appellant's right to a fair hearing
protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The respondents
were unable to prove that the restrictions on the appellants' right
to a fair hearing were reasonable. Therefore, the order of MIB
dated 31 January 2022 denying permission for renewal of the
license and the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court
dated 2 March 2022 must be set aside on the ground of the
infringement of procedural guarantees. [Para 159][704-G-H; 705A-B]
9. The note that was submitted by the IB on the alleged
role and activities of JEI-H states that the organisation was
banned thrice and all the three bans were revoked. The
organisation was banned last in 1992 under the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act 1947. This Court had nullified the ban in 1994.
Thus, when JEI-H is not a banned organisation, it would be rather
precarious for the State to contend that the links with the
organisation would affect the sovereignty and integrity of the
nation, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign
States, or public order. Additionally, the only piece of evidence in
the file to link MBL to JEI-H is the alleged investment in the
shares of MBL by cadres of JEI-H. In the support of this, IB has
submitted a list of shareholders. However, there is no evidence
on record to link them to JEI-H. Thus, the allegation that MBL
is linked to JEI-H is fallacious, firstly, because JEI-H is not a
banned organisation and there is no material to conclude that the
investment by JEI-H sympathizers would affect India's security,
and secondly, even if it is accepted that the investment by JEI-H
sympathizers would affect the security of the State, there is no
material to prove that the shareholders are sympathizers of JEIH. In view of the discussion above, the purpose of denying
security clearance does not have a legitimate goal or a proper
purpose. [Para 168][707-F-H; 708-A-B]
Ex-Armymen's protection Services Private Limited v.
Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 409 : [2014] 3 SCR 359
and Digi Cable Network (India) Private v. Union of India
AIR 2019 SC 455 : [2019] 1 SCR 88- explained.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
607
KS Puttaswamy (9J) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC
1 : [2017] 10 SCR 569; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India (1978) 1 SCC 248 : [1978] 2 SCR 621; RC
Cooper v. Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 248 : [1970] 3
SCR 530; State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh
[1961] 2 SCR 371 and SP Gupta v. Union of India
(1981) Supp SCC 87 : [1982] 2 SCR 365 - followed.
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637
and Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India (2021) SCC
OnLine SC 985 - relied on.
State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell (1996) 3 SCC
709 : [1996] 3 SCR 721; Tata Cellular v. Union of India
(1994) 6 SCC 651 : [1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 122; Council
of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service
(1985) A.C 374; Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001) 2
SCC 386 : [2000] 4 Suppl. SCR 693; Union of India v.
G. Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463 : [1997] 3 Suppl.
SCR 549; N K Prasada v. Government of India (2004)
6 SCC 299 : [2004] 3 SCR 1178; Automotive Tyre
Manufacturers Association v. Designated Authority
(2011) 2 SCC 258 : [2011] 1 SCR 198; A K Gopalan v.
State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27 : [1950] SCR 88;
Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004)
4 SCC 158 : [2004] 3 SCR 1050; S L Kapoor v.
Jagmohan (1980) 4 SCC 379 : [1981] 1 SCR 746;
Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India AIR 1981 SC
818 : [1981] 2 SCR 533; Olga Tellis v. Bombay
Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545 : [1985] 2
Suppl. SCR 51; C B Gautam v. Union of India (1993) 1
SCC 78 : [1992] 3 Suppl. SCR 12; Sahara India (Firm),
Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I
(2008) 14 SCC 151 : [2008] 6 SCR 427; Kesar
Enterprises Ltd v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 13 SCC
733 : [2011] 9 SCR 19; Modern Dental College &
Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 4
SCC 346 : [2016] 3 SCR 575; Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd.
v. UT, Chandigarh (2004) 2 SCC 130 : [2003] 6 Suppl.
SCR 1235; MH Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra (1978)
MADHYAMAM BROADCASTING LIMITED v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
608
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
3 SCC 544 : [1979] 1 SCR 192; Modern Dental College
& Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016)
7 SCC 353 : [2016] 3 SCR 579; S N Mukherjee v. Union
of India (1990) 4 SCC 594 : [1990] 1 Suppl. SCR 44;
Seimens Engineering and Manufacturing Company v.
Union of India (1976) 2 SCC 981 : [1976] Suppl.
SCR 489; CCI v. SAIL (2010) 10 SCC 744 : [2010]
11 SCR 112; Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan
(2010) 9 SCC 496 : [2010] 10 SCR 1070; Rani Lakshmi
Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Dharan Varshney
(2009) 4 SCC 240 : [2009] 5 SCR 326; State of West
Bengal v. Alpana Roy (2005) 8 SCC 296 : [2005] 3
Suppl. SCR 482; L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
(1995) 1 SCC 400 : [1994] 6 Suppl. SCR 261; Justice
K S Puttaswamy (5J) v. Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1
: [2018] 8 SCR 1; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain
(1975) 4 SCC 428 : [1975] 3 SCR 333; Om Kumar v.
Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386 : [2000] 4 Suppl.
SCR 693; Union of India v. Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC
463 : [1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 549; Romesh Thappar v.
State of Madras (1950) SCC 436; Ram Manohar Lohia
v. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 740 : [1966] 1 SCR
709; B P Singhal v. Union of India (2010) 6 SCC 331;
Commander Amit Kumar Sharma v. Union of India
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1570 - referred to.
Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
[2007] 1 SCR 350; Secretary of State for Home
Department v. Rehman (2003) 1 AC 153; Council of
Civil Service Unions v. Minister of Civil Service 1985
AC 374; Chief Constable of North Wales Police v. Evans
(1982) 1 WLR 1155; Kanda v. Government of Malaya
(1962) 28 MLJ 169; The King v. Inspector of Leman
Street Police Station, Ex Parte Venicoff (1920) 3 K.B.
72; Nakkuda Ali v. MF De S Jayaratne [1951] AC 66;
Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] A.C 40; R v. Oakes [1986] 1
SCR 103; A v. The United Kingdom, Application no.
3455/05; Secretary of State for the Home Department
v. AF [2009] UKHL 28; Totten v. United States 92 US
105, 107 (1876); Chahal v. United Kingdom (1996) 23
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
609
EHRR 413; Roberts v. Parole Board (2005) 2 AC 738;
R v. H (2004) AC 134; Duncan v. Cammell Laird [1942]
AC 624; Conway v. Rimmer [1968] AC 910; Reg v.
Chief Constable, W.Midlands, Ex p. Wiley [1994] WLR
433; R (Mohamed) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs [2009] EWHC 152 (Admins);
United States v. Reynolds 345 US 1 (1953); Binyam
Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan 614 F 3d 1070; Carey
v. Majesty (1986), 72 N.R 81 (SCC); Ribic v. Canada
(Attorney General) 2003 FCA 246; R v. Ahmad (2011)
SCC 6; Al Rawi v. The Security Service (2011) UKSC
34 and A & Ors. v. The United Kingdom, Application
no. 3455/05 - referred to.
Mark Elliotts, Jack Beatson, Martin Mathews,
Administrative Law: text and Materials (3rd ed.
Oxford University Press); Laurence Tribe, American
Constitution Law (2nd ed.). Pg. 666 21; DJ Galligan,
Due Process and Fair Procedures: A Study of
Administrative Procedures (Clarendon Press 1996)
22 TRS Allan, Procedural Fairness and the Duty of
Respect (Oxford Journal of Legal Studies) p. 510;
Raeesa Vakil, Constitutionalizing administrative law
in the Indian Supreme Court: Natural Justice and
Fundamental Rights, (Volume 16, Issue 2,
International Journal of Constitutional Law, 2018,
p.475-502; Aharon Barak, Proportionality:
Constitutional Rights and their limitations (Cambridge
University Press, 2012), 374. 39 Giacinto della
Cananea, Reasonableness in Administrative law in
Reasonableness and Law (ed. by Giorgio Boniovanni,
Giovanni Sartar, Chiara Valentini); Sir Alfred Denning,
Freedom Under the Law (Stevens and Sons 1949) p.
92; Dr BR Ambedkar, Constituent Assembly of India
Debates (Vol. VII, 9 December 1948; David Bilchitz,
'Necessity and Proportionality: Towards a Balanced
Approach? in Liora Lazarus et al (eds), Reasoning
Rights: Comparative Judicial Engagement (Hart
2014) 49.; Martin Chamberlain, Special Advocates and
Amici Curiae in National Security proceedings in the
MADHYAMAM BROADCASTING LIMITED v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
610
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
United Kingdom, The University of Toronto Law
Journal, Summer 2018, Vol. 68, No. 3, Special Issue
on Indigenous Law (Summer 2018), pp. 496-510 -
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 3 SCR 359
explained
Para 11(ii)
[2019] 1 SCR 88
explained
Para 11(ii)
(2020) 3 SCC 637
relied on
Para 15(ii)
[2017]10 SCR 569
followed
Para 15(ii)
[1996] 3 SCR 721
referred to
Para 31
[1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 122
referred to
Para 31
[2000] 4 Suppl. SCR 693
referred to
Para 31
[1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 549
referred to
Para 31
[1978] 2 SCR 621
followed
Para 41
[2004] 3 SCR 1178
referred to
Para 42
[2011] 1 SCR 198
referred to
Para 42
[1950] SCR 88
referred to
Para 44
[1970] 3 SCR 530
followed
Para 45
[2004 ] 3 SCR 1050
referred to
Para 45
[1981] 1 SCR 746
referred to
Para 47
[1981] 2 SCR 533
referred to
Para 47
[1985] 2 Suppl. SCR 51
referred to
Para 47
[1992] 3 Suppl. SCR 12
referred to
Para 47
[2008] 6 SCR 427
referred to
Para 47
[2011] 9 SCR 19
referred to
Para 47
[1986] 1 SCR 103
referred to
Para 49
[2016] 3 SCR 575
referred to
Para 49
[2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 1235
referred to
Para 51
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
611
[1979] 1 SCR 192
referred to
Para 51
[2016] 3 SCR 579
referred to
Para 52
[2018] 8 SCR 1
referred to
Para 52
[1990] 1 Suppl. SCR 44
referred to
Para 56
[1976] Suppl. SCR 489
referred to
Para 56
[2010] 11 SCR 112
referred to
Para 56
[2010] 10 SCR 1070
referred to
Para 56
[2009] 5 SCR 326
referred to
Para 56
[2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 482
referred to
Para 56
[2007] 1 SCR 350
referred to
Para 59
[1994] 6 Suppl. SCR 261
referred to
Para 61
[1982] 2 SCR 272
referred to
Para 83
(1950) SCC 436
referred to
Para 83
[1966] 1 SCR 709
referred to
Para 83
(2010) 6 SCC 331
referred to
Para 84
[1961] 2 SCR 371
followed
Para 115
[1975] 3 SCR 333
referred to
Para 117
[1982] 2 SCR 365
followed
Para 118
[2000] 4 Suppl. SCR 693
referred to
Para 164
[1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 549
referred to
Para 164
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8129
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.03.2022 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in WA No. 218 of 2022.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 8130 and 8131 of 2022.
K.M. Nataraj, ASG, Dushyant A Dave, Huzefa A Ahmadi, Mukul
Rohatgi, Sr. Advs., Haris Beeran, Mushtaq Salim, Usman Ghani Khan,
Azhar Assees, Ameen Hassan, Ms. Sharukh Alam, Akshat Malpani,
MADHYAMAM BROADCASTING LIMITED v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
612
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
Ms. Pallavi Pratap, Radha Shyam Jena, Shailesh Madiyal, Ms.
Swarupama Chaturvedi, Apoorv Kurup, Rajat Nair, T.S. Sabarish,
Anirudh Sharma - II, Amrish Kumar, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
This judgment consists of the following sections:
A. Facts ................................................................................ 4*
B. Submissions ................................................................... 15*
C. Issues ............................................................................. 19*
D. Requirement of security clearance for renewal of
permission ........................................................................... 21*
E. Judicial Review on procedural grounds ......................... 26*
E. 1 Principles of natural justice: purpose and content.. 28*
E. 2 Constitutionalizing principles of natural justice:
the impact of Maneka Gandhi ....................................... 33*
E. 3 Standard to test reasonableness of procedure:
proportionality as reasonableness .................................. 37*
F. Infringement of MBL's right to a fair hearing ................ 40*
G. Whether the infringement of MBL's right to a fair hearing
 is justified ...................................................................... 46*
G. 1 Natural justice and national security: decisions in Digi and
Ex-armymen .................................................................. 47*
G.2 Application of the proportionality standard.............. 59*
G. 2 (a) Legitimate Goal Stage ................................. 60*
(I) Confidentiality and IB Reports ............................ 62*
(II) National Security ............................................... 63*
(III) Opening the sealed cover ................................. 67*
G.2 (b) Suitability ...................................................... 76*
Ed. Note : Pagination is as per the original judgment.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
613
G. 3 (c) Least restrictive means ............................... 78*
(I) Totten claim: non-justiciability of the issue .......... 80*
(II) Closed Material Procedure and Special
Advocates ................................................................ 81*
(III) Public Interest Immunity .................................. 82*
H. Jurisprudence on public interest immunity claims.......... 88*
H.1 India ........................................................................ 88*
H. 2 United Kingdom .................................................... 96*
H.