Editorial: Denial of justice
There is a growing tendency among the authorities to invoke the national security clause to suppress and silence any form of dissent. The Centre’s ban on the Malayalam news channel — MediaOne — is the latest instance of how critical voices are sought to be muzzled in the name of protecting the interests of national […]
There is a growing tendency among the authorities to invoke the national security clause to suppress and silence any form of dissent. The Centre’s ban on the Malayalam news channel — MediaOne — is the latest instance of how critical voices are sought to be muzzled in the name of protecting the interests of national security. Such an approach is highly detrimental to the survival of a vibrant democracy for which India is known the world over. Dissent, disagreement and debate are the essential ingredients of a successful democracy. What is perplexing is that the Union Home Ministry has not made public the reasons for refusing security clearance for renewal of the licence for the television channel owned by Jamaat-e-Islami Hind. The Kerala High Court too dismissed the petition of the media house challenging the Union government’s order barring its transmission. The court’s decision was entirely based on an assessment of the material submitted by the government in a sealed envelope, the contents of which were never disclosed. This is a deeply troubling development and runs counter to the Supreme Court’s categorical clarification in the past that the “State does not get a free pass every time when the spectre of national security is raised”. The apex court had upheld the freedom of the press through several verdicts in recent times. While it is worrying that the government flatly refuses to explain and elaborate its actions before the court in a transparent manner, it is even more disquieting when the judiciary does not ask questions of the executive.
It is unfair to justify the denial of security clearance without giving the channel an opportunity to be heard. Freedom of speech and expression forms part of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. There should be diverse opinions in the public sphere in the absence of which democracy would be in peril. It must be pointed out that any media organisation cannot function in a clandestine manner and its financial dealings and investor details are all in the public domain. There are well laid down procedures to scrutinise anything, including their content, revenues and source of funding. Leaving them clueless as to why they have been penalised is a complete denial of natural justice. If there were any serious issues involved, they should have been examined separately and resolved through constitutional means. MediaOne, along with another Malayalam News channel Asianet, was briefly suspended for 48 hours under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act over their coverage of communal violence in New Delhi in 2020, with the official orders then saying they covered the violence in a manner that highlighted the attack on places of worship and siding towards a particular community. The ministry had then claimed that the channels had an outrightly biased critique of the Delhi Police and the RSS.
