Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India (2023)

• Article 19(1)(a): protects freedom of speech and of the press.
• Article 19(2): allows only limited, enumerated restrictions (e.g., security of State, public order). Criticism of policy is not a ground.
• Natural Justice: right to notice, reasons, and meaningful opportunity to reply.
• Administrative Fairness: decisions affecting rights must be transparent and reasoned; secrecy must be narrowly justified.

Held: The refusal was unconstitutional. The Court directed the Ministry to process renewal and restore broadcasting in line with law.

• Reasons must be disclosed at least in summary: This is the baseline safeguard.
• Sealed cover practice rejected: It blocks effective rebuttal and undermines fairness.
• No proof of real security threat: The material relied on was inferential or public; JEI-H is not banned.
• Press freedom reaffirmed: An anti-establishment editorial line is protected speech.

Core Principle: Where full disclosure is restricted for security, the State must still supply a clear, usable summary of reasons to enable an effective reply. Sealed-cover material that is hidden from the party cannot be the sole basis of adverse action.

Free Speech Link: Editorial stance or policy criticism is not a valid Article 19(2) restriction. Denial of license on such basis chills press freedom.

• Puts procedural fairness back into security-based decisions.
• Curbs sealed cover use and supports transparency.
• Strengthens press freedom for critical journalism.

1. Give reasons: At least a fair summary must be shared.
2. No secret one-sided evidence: Sealed-cover reliance violates natural justice.
3. Speech protection: Anti-establishment editorial content is protected.
4. Proof threshold: Real, concrete security material is required.
5. Guideline compliance matters: Renewal criteria and Programme Code history are relevant.

Mnemonic: “R-S-P” → Reasons, Sealed cover rejected, Press protected.

• 1. Reasons: Share at least a summary.
• 2. Sealed Cover: No hidden one-sided material.
• 3. Press: Critical views ≠ security threat.

Issue: Can renewal be denied on undisclosed security grounds using sealed-cover material?

Rule: Article 19(1)(a) and natural justice require fairness; Article 19(2) lists limited grounds; secrecy must be narrowly justified with a usable summary.

Application: No concrete security material was shown; alleged links to a lawful body and editorial stance cannot justify refusal; non-disclosure blocked effective rebuttal.

Conclusion: Refusal unconstitutional; renewal to be processed per law.

Sealed Cover

Material shown to the court but not shared with the affected party.

Security Clearance

Government’s assessment of risk in licensing/broadcast matters.

Natural Justice

Fair procedure: notice, reasons, and chance to reply.