Malayalam channel Media One lost its High Court appeal challenging the union government’s decision to revoke its broadcast licence—which is the first decision of its kind. What makes it even more notable: No one knows why it was cancelled—except the court and the government—not even Media One.
Researched by: Sara Varghese
The TV channel: was launched in 2013 by the Madhyamam Broadcasting Corporation—which in turn is owned by the Kerala wing of the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind. The news and entertainment channel had a partnership with Al Jazeera, and produced its own serials and films. Its stated aim was to give “due space to issues of minorities, Dalits and the marginalised.”
Jamaat-e-Islami Hind: has its roots in pre-Independence India. The original Jamaat-e-Islami was a right-leaning Islamic organisation—which opposed Partition and advocated a global Islamic state. In a sense, it was an ideological counterpart of the RSS at that time.
After Partition, the organisation broke up into three separate groups: Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan (JIP), Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (JIH) and Jamaat-e-Islami Kashmir (JIK). The Pakistan group became a prominent party, while the Kashmir group grew more radical and politically active in the Valley.
In contrast, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (JIH) has become far more moderate over the intervening decades—and embraced both democracy and secularism in its rhetoric. In 2011, the JIH launched a political party, the Welfare Party of India (WPI)—which bills itself as a more secular organisation and also works with Christians, Dalits and other minorities. But WPI has not achieved much traction, and JIH has since pivoted to focusing mostly on social welfare activities.
Previous suspensions: The TV channel has been temporarily banned in the past. The first time was during the Emergency—when its leaders were arrested along with those from other religious parties, including the RSS. More recently, the channel was suspended for 48 hours during the Delhi violence in 2020—along with another TV channel Asianet (owned by BJP Rajya Sabha member Rajeev Chandrasekhar). They were accused of highlighting "the attack on places of worship and siding towards a particular community.”
The channel’s politics: According to Managing Editor C Dawood, the channel has been highly critical of government policies and actions—especially during the farmer and anti-CAA protests. He says: “We have been objective and factual in our criticism of governmental policies. It is the media’s duty to be critical.”
Also this: Media One’s editor Pramod Raman told The New Minute:
“It is a news organisation. At no point did the channel spread the politics of the outfit [Jamaat-e-Islami Hind]. Many political parties run channels here, so what is the problem if an organisation wants to run a channel?"
OTOH: Kerala BJP chief K Surendran calls Media One an “anti-national channel”—though he refused to elaborate on the allegation:
“K Surendran also told TNM that there are many examples to prove his allegation but he doesn't want to specify them as he doesn't want to speak against a media channel. He also said that the current action against Media One TV is purely technical and not political.”
Here’s a timeline of events:
Key point to note: This is the first time the Indian government has actually revoked a channel’s licence. Until now, TV channels like NDTV have only been temporarily taken off air. And the reasons for suspension were clearly communicated to the company.
The court case: Media One managed to secure a temporary stay from the Kerala High Court—and challenged the decision. On Tuesday, Justice N Nagaresh dismissed its plea. And here’s where things get really murky…
The government’s argument: The Assistant Solicitor General representing the union government challenged the interim stay, arguing:
“[T]he Ministry of Home Affairs has informed that denial of security clearance to the TV channel based on intelligence inputs, which are sensitive and secret in nature, therefore, as a matter of policy and in the interest of national security, MHA does not disclose reasons for denial.”
The government also argued that since the matter involved national security, Media One did not have the usual legal rights—including “the expectation that an affected party must be given a chance to defend itself.” In other words, the government has no obligation to inform Media One why it was denied MHA clearance.
The sealed cover: The government did, however, share its “national security concerns” with the judge in a sealed cover—the contents of which were not shared with Media One.
The judgement: Justice Nagresh in his ruling declared:
“Going through the files, I find that the Ministry has called for intelligence inputs. Based on the intelligence inputs, the committee of officers has found that security clearance should not be given. The Ministry has decided to accept the finding of the Committee of Officers. There are inputs justifying the denial of security clearance. Therefore I am dismissing the writ petition.”
And more pointedly, he said: “Since national security must be paramount, natural justice must then give way.” Citing a previous case as precedent, he also made clear: “Once the State is of the stand that the issue involves national security, the court shall not disclose the reasons to the affected party.” In other words, the Justice sided entirely with the government.
Well, that’s what legal experts are asking—and here are some of their criticisms.
One: Gautam Bhatia points out that the judge failed to apply the “proportionality” principle:
“[I]n the event the Court was inclined to uphold the ban, it would—in accordance with the proportionality standard—show how a complete ban was the ‘least restrictive measure’ that was open to the government, and how the extent of the threat was ‘proportionate’ to the stringency of the government measure (i.e., a total ban).”
Translation: The court was duty-bound to give proper weight to the constitutional right to freedom of expression—rather than just brush it aside in the name of “national security.”
Two: Bhatia also skewers the complete absence of legal reasoning—and any effort to explain why the ruling upheld a total ban on free speech:
“I place the word ‘judgment’ in quotation marks, because when a constitutional court hands down what it purports to call a ‘judgment’, we expect that there will be (a) some legal reasoning, (b) an outcome, and (c) something that connects the legal reasoning to the outcome. When (a) is missing from the text of what the Court writes, then it is difficult to understand how, in an objective way, what the Court has done can be called a ‘judgment.’”
Three: LiveLaw editor Manu Sebastian is astonished that the judge simply dismissed the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Pegasus snoopware (explained here). The apex court declared that the “mere invocation of national security won't render the Court a mute spectator”—and made it clear that the core issue concerned the freedom of the press. Yet, Justice Nagaresh declared in his ruling: “As far as the Pegasus judgment is concerned, it has been passed in the view of the right to privacy.”
Four: While Media One was not allowed to defend its right to remain on air, the judge did absolutely nothing to interrogate the government—as this Indian Express editorial notes:
“The reasoning in the 18-page verdict appears to be a dialogue between the state and the judiciary in secrecy even as a petitioner stood before the court alleging violation of fundamental rights… While it is worrying that the government flatly refuses to justify its actions before the court, it is even more disquieting when the judiciary does not ask questions of the executive.”
The bottom line: Media One has appealed the single-judge ruling—petitioning a two-justice High Court bench. They refused its petition to issue a temporary stay on the ban. So the channel remains off the airwaves until the courts have their final say—which will seriously affect the future of not just Media One but also every other media outlet in this country.
Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies has the best background on Jamaat-e-Islami Hind. Scroll has two very good explainers: One on why the Media One judgement matters and the other on how the government controls TV channels. LiveLaw has the details of Justice Nagresh’s ruling and Manu Sebastian’s analysis of it. Also very good: Gautam Bhatia’s scathing critique of the ruling. The Wire has an interview with the managing editor of Media One.
What you can watch online is likely to shrink dramatically in the coming years.
Read MoreWhy did Netflix and other OTT platforms in India slide so rapidly down the greasy pole of self-censorship?
Read MoreThe unprecedented arrest of Arvind Kejriwal reveals the high price of an anti-corruption law that may keep him in jail.
Read MoreThe attack in Moscow is a reminder that ISIS is not dead and making sure it is not forgotten.
Read More