News and developments
MEDIA, ENTERTAINMENT & GAMING LAWS – YEAR IN REVIEW 2023
Case Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India[1]
Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited (“MBL”) filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Kerala High Court challenging MIB’s revocation of permission granted to MBL for uplinking and downlinking a news and current affairs television channel ‘Media One’, and prayed for grant of an opportunity to be heard before revoking the permission. The writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge and the Division Bench, subsequently relying on material disclosed solely to the Hon’ble Court in a sealed cover by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (“MHA”). MBL filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of the division bench of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court.
MIB granted MBL permission to uplink 'Media One' for a period of ten years under the Policy Guidelines for Uplinking of Television Channels from India (“Uplinking Guidelines”). MIB also issued a registration certificate for downlinking of the ‘Media One’ channel for a period of five years in accordance with the provisions of the Policy Guidelines for Downlinking of Television Channels (“Downlinking Guidelines”). However, later, MIB issued a notice to show cause to MBL proposing to revoke the permission for uplinking and downlinking granted to ‘Media One’ and ‘Media One Life’ in view of the denial of security clearance by Ministry of Home Affairs (“MHA”).
MBL contended that security clearance is a pre-condition only for the grant of permission to operate the channel and not for the renewal of the existing permission. Moreover, security clearance cannot be denied on grounds that exceed the reasonable restrictions on the freedom of the press prescribed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, refusal of security clearance must be subject to the limitations prescribed in Article 19(2) of the Constitution read with Section 4(6) of the Cable TV Act. The denial and revocation are also against the principles of natural justice, when the State supplied the reasons for denial to the Hon’ble High Court in a sealed envelope.
The State, on the other hand, submitted that the Uplinking Guidelines demonstrate that security clearance is a pre-condition for renewal of license, and MIB was justified in revoking the permission granted to Media One because MHA denied security clearance. Further, the principles of natural justice stand excluded when issues of national security are involved.
To begin with, the Hon’ble Supreme Court analysed the power of judicial review on procedural ground, and held that it is a settled position of law that an administrative action can be challenged on the ground of a violation of fundamental rights. Administrative action is judicially reviewable on the grounds of (i) unreasonableness or irrationality; (ii) illegality; and (iii) procedural impropriety.
In this context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also considered the issues of non-disclosure of reasons for denial of security clearance leading to infringement of right to fair hearing, protected under Articles 14 and 21; and if infringement of the right to a fair hearing would render the decision void. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also considered the issue if considerations of national security are an established exception to principles of natural justice, then how should the court resolve the competing interests represented by the principles of natural justice and national security.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in this regard, held that the notice to show cause states that MHA denied security clearance to MBL, however, it does not mention the reasons for the denial of security clearance. Further, MHA also declined to disclose any material that was relevant to its decision, which was not limited to a few 'top secret' documents but all relevant documents were undisclosed. Furthermore, MIB denied to disclose MBL even the summary of the reasoning denying security clearance. This has necessarily left MBL with no remedy.
Upon a comprehensive reading of the Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a few conditions need to be fulfilled for renewal of the uplinking and downlinking permissions. These are:
Author: Rahul Goel and Anu Monga
Footnote [1] Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 366. [2] W.P.Nos.13203 of 2023 [3] Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors. (Delhi High Court CS(Comm) 652 of 2023) [4] Mubeen Rauf v. Union Of India, WP(C) No. 32733 OF 2023. [5] VIACOM18 Media (P) Ltd. v. Live. Smartcric.Com, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5978. [6] Universal City Studios LLC v. Fztvseries. Mobi, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7313. [7] Star India (P) Ltd. v. Jiolive TV, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6095. [8] Viacom18 Media (P) Ltd. v. Biggbos. Live, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6692. [9] TVF Media Labs (P) Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 1 HCC (Del) 778.
-
- The channel should not have violated the programme and advertisement code on five or more occasions;
- The channel should not have been found guilty of violating the terms and conditions of permission; and
- The channel must fulfil all the terms and conditions that apply to the grant of permission as modified by the letter of permission.
- Online games of rummy and poker are ‘game of skill’, hence do not fall under the definition of “online gambling”; Madras High Court lifts ban on online games of Skill.
- Delhi High Court safeguards personality rights
- Measures to prevent “Review Bombing” by social media influencers from posting malicious reviews for extortion
- High Courts direct MeitY and DOT to ban rogue websites to broadcast copyrighted content
- Delhi High Court directs online content curator to ensure that the content does not cross limits of vulgarity and obscenity
Author: Rahul Goel and Anu Monga
Footnote [1] Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 366. [2] W.P.Nos.13203 of 2023 [3] Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors. (Delhi High Court CS(Comm) 652 of 2023) [4] Mubeen Rauf v. Union Of India, WP(C) No. 32733 OF 2023. [5] VIACOM18 Media (P) Ltd. v. Live. Smartcric.Com, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5978. [6] Universal City Studios LLC v. Fztvseries. Mobi, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7313. [7] Star India (P) Ltd. v. Jiolive TV, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6095. [8] Viacom18 Media (P) Ltd. v. Biggbos. Live, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6692. [9] TVF Media Labs (P) Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 1 HCC (Del) 778.