Introduction-Contextualization & Background

The transmission restriction that had been placed on the Malayalam news station MediaOne by the Union Government was lifted by the Supreme Court. In order to justify its decision not to renew the channel’s license, the government cited the fact that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had declined to grant a security clearance. The MHA has accused channel promoters of having ties to Jamaat-e-Islami Hind.

Mediaone submitted a Writ appeal to the Kerala High Court under Article 226, and the court agreed with the government’s assessment that the matter involved national security and did not require natural justice because it was a national security concern.


The following decisions were handed down by the Supreme Court: • The station did not breach the Cable Television Networking (Regulation) Act 1995’s Programme and Advertising Code.

• There is not a shred of evidence that Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited had any kind of relationship with Jamaat-e-Islami-Hind (JEIH). The JEIH is a respectable organization.

• The Supreme Court made the determination that the channel was not permitted to defend Article 19(2).

• The state is misusing national security in order to prevent citizens from pursuing legal options.

• The evaluation of the national security considerations did not perform a test of proportionality.

• The Court stated that there is an inherent merit in upholding the natural justice principles.

• Concerns over national security while concerns over national security and confidentiality are reasonable reasons to limit procedural guarantees, investigative reports cannot be protected from public publication.

• Keeping proceedings secret is contrary to the principles of natural justice and transparent justice.



• Obeyed the guidelines of the notion of natural justice. 1978’s “Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India” case was the one that constitutionalized natural justice.

• The Supreme Court of India utilized the proportionality test in both the case of Modern Dental College vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) and the case of K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017). When there is a conflict between legitimate rights, the courts will employ the concept of proportionality to settle the case. One right will typically prevail at the expense of the other, and the court must strike a balance between the satisfaction of some rights and the damage done to other rights.

• The Jurisprudence of Sealed Covers: When courts need to request or receive information from government agencies, they employ sealed envelopes.The term “sealed cover” does not have any legal definition. A number of different rules including section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 are the sources of the Supreme Court’s authority.

 INITIATIVES: Structural and functional initiatives 


Recent decisions of the Supreme Court have mandated that, in order for the government to offer evidence based on the national security justification, it must comply with stricter requirements. In the case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, which was heard before the Supreme Court in 2020, the justices decided that immunity for matters pertaining to national security is not unquestionable. In the interim injunction that the Supreme Court issued in 2021, it said that “mere invocation of national security won’t render the Court a mute spectator” while it investigated the deployment of Pegasus malware on civilians. 

In a recent decision, the High Court of Kerala ignored previous cases when it stated that “in a situation of national security, a party cannot insist for strict observance of the principles of natural justice.” In most cases, situations of grave concern to the nation’s security are handled by the executive branch, not the judicial system. Nevertheless, the Constitution does include a procedural test that can be used to establish whether or not Parliament approved of the action and whether or not the state utilized its powers in a manner that was proportional to the risk that was envisioned. Constitutional courts have the responsibility of monitoring the state, particularly in areas pertaining to national security.