In an atmosphere where criticism of individuals or political positions is often conflated with attacks on the State and legal procedures and gaps in statutes are weaponised to keep people not convicted of any crimes behind bars, the Supreme Court’s judgment on Wednesday quashing a ban on a Kerala television channel comes as a breath of fresh air. The court’s firm statements upholding the primacy of freedom of speech and free press should also serve as an antidote to the troubling trend of politicians with thin skins acting in collusion with pliant law enforcement establishments to file cases for perceived slights, critiques, or simply refusals to toe the line.
In 2020, MediaOne TV was banned for 48 hours after the information and broadcasting ministry objected to its coverage of the 2020 Delhi riots and said it violated the provisions of the 1994 Cable Television Network Rules. In 2022, the channel was taken off the air after its licence was not renewed, citing security concerns. When the channel approached the Kerala high court, the latter sided with the government after perusing material submitted by the authorities in a sealed envelope, denying the petitioners any opportunity to know, or contest, the reasons for the ban.
In reversing that verdict, the top court has underlined three important principles. One, it has raised the bar for any attempt to infringe on the right to free speech and media freedom. In saying that the government cannot use national security as a blanket reason for denying constitutional rights without giving any specific details, the court has stressed that any restriction on free speech – and consequently media freedom – has to be proportional and reasonable. Any invocation of national security now needs to be accompanied by specific arguments that must pass judicial muster. This will ensure that no person’s rights can be curtailed without giving them a chance to find out or contest the reasons behind the decision. Such an emphasis on procedural fairness will go a long way in levelling the pitch on the fundamental rights of individuals, who often find themselves in positions of vulnerability when squaring against the institutional powers of the State.
The second message from India’s highest constitutional court is both substantive and symbolic. The bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud held that critical views held by the channel was not enough to term it anti-establishment, and that fundamental rights could not be curbed merely on the grounds of hostile views. In a society where ad-hominem attacks on people holding differing political views have been disturbingly normalised, the court’s judgment should show why diversity of opinions, tolerance, and executive restraint matter – and reiterates that criticism of a government isn’t anti-national behaviour.
The third takeaway is the court’s highlighting of the importance of an independent press. The court held that a free press shone a light on the functioning of the State, and any restrictions on the media may create homogenised views on society and politics. This is dangerous for a vibrant democracy, where the media has possibly an even bigger role in educating the population, curbing misinformation, and holding the powerful to account than in advanced nations. The court’s judgment is a watershed moment in shielding the media from State excesses. It is now up to the authorities, political class and society to ingest, imbibe and implement these tenets.
Enjoy unlimited digital access with HT Premium
Subscribe Now to continue reading
