Sealed covers violate right to fair and reasonable proceedings: Supreme Court in MediaOne judgment

Sealed cover proceedings violate the principles of natural justice, the Supreme Court said while setting aside the Central government's refusal to renew the broadcasting license of Malayalam news channel MediaOne on the basis of national security concerns. .A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli opined in its judgment that sealed covers curb the right to fair and reasonable proceedings, leaving appellants in the dark."The sealed cover procedure followed by the single-judge and the division bench (of the Kerala High Court) have necessarily rendered the appellant’s right to writ remedies, which has been described as the ‘heart and soul’ of the Constitution and a basic feature of the constitution, a dry parchment.. rendered the appellant’s procedural guarantees under the Constitution otiose," the Court said. .It underscored that in such cases where sealed covers are sought to be used, the State must establish that national security is threatened and that principles of natural justice can be done away with. "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... Additionally, while public interest immunity claims conceivably impact the principles of natural justice, sealed cover proceedings infringe the principles natural justice and open justice."The Court took exception to the 'cavalier manner' in which claims of national security argument was raised by the Central government. "It is our constitutional duty to mention the cavalier manner in which Union of India has raised the claim of national security. Other than merely claiming that national security is involved, both in the affidavit that was filed before the High Court and in the submissions before us, the Union of India made no attempt to explain how non-disclosure would be in the interest of national security.".The Court also shed light on when sealed cover proceedings should not be adopted."It is sufficient to state that 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 Central government had disclosed its reasons behind the ban to the Kerala High Court in a sealed cover. MediaOne was not made privy to those reasons.The channel had moved the top court challenging a Kerala High Court Division Bench judgment which had upheld the Central government's revocation of security clearance for renewal of the channel's license..After the MediaOne channel was taken off air on January 31, 2022, it approached the High Court, which decided to defer the operation of the Ministry's order.However, on February 8, single-judge Justice Nagaresh upheld the decision of the I&B Ministry to revoke the Malayalam channel's licence..The High Court had opined that the material handed over to it in a sealed cover indicated that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had sufficient cause to deny security clearance to the channel, thereby justifying the ban.The Central government had refused to state what the concerns raised by MHA were, and contended that a party cannot insist on observing natural justice principles in a situation involving national security..Thereafter, the single-judge's decision was appealed by Madhyamam Broadcasting, MediaOne Editor Pramod Raman and by the Kerala Union of Working Journalists.A Division Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly then upheld the single-judge's decision, prompting the channel to approach the Supreme Court.On March 13, a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath stayed the ban on the channel and ordered that it can resume operations in the same manner in which it was being operated before revocation of security clearance..[Read Judgment]