Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.120 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 33244 of 2015)
Digi Cable Network (India) Pvt. Ltd. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. ….Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.121 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 33411 of 2015)
SCOD 18 Networking Pvt. Ltd. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
& Ors. ….Respondent(s)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2019.01.07
17:40:09 IST
Reason:
1
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
IN CIVIL APPEAL No.120 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 33244 of 2015)
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final
judgment and order dated 30.10.2015 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition
No.58 of 2015 whereby the Division Bench of the
High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the
appellant herein.
3. The controversy involved in this appeal lies in
a narrow compass as would be clear from the facts
stated hereinbelow.
4. By letter dated 12.06.2012 (Annexure P2) the
appellant was granted permission by the
Government of India under Rule 11C of the Cable
2
Television Network (Amendment) Rules, 2012
(hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) for operating
as Multi System Operator (MSO) in the Digital
Addressable System (DAS) notified areas vide
notification dated 11.11.2011.
5. This permission was, however, cancelled by
the Government of India vide order dated
03.09.2014 on the ground that the Ministry of
Home Affairs has denied issuance of “security
clearance” to the appellant. In other words, since
the Ministry of Home Affairs did not grant security
clearance to the appellant, the permission initially
granted to the appellant vide letter dated
12.06.2012 was cancelled.
6. Challenging the order of cancellation of grant
of permission, the appellant filed writ petition before
the High Court of Bombay at Mumbai. By impugned
order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition
3
and upheld the order of cancellation as being just,
legal and proper which has given rise to filing of the
present appeal by way of special leave in this Court
by the unsuccessful writ petitioner.
7. So, the short question involved in this appeal
is whether the High Court was justified in
dismissing the appellant's writ petition and, in
consequence, was justified in upholding the order
dated 03.09.2014 cancelling the permission which
was granted to the appellant vide letter dated
12.06.2012.
8. Heard Mr. Jay Savla, learned counsel for the
appellant and Ms. Pinky Anand, learned ASG for the
respondents.
9. It may be mentioned here that Ms. Pinky
Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the Union of Indiarespondent filed
the copy of the reasons in a sealed cover which was
4
made basis to deny security clearance to the
appellant and which led to cancellation/withdrawal
of permission granted to the appellant. The
document filed is taken on record for perusal.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
find no merit in this appeal.
11. In our considered opinion, the impugned order
of cancellation was passed in conformity with the
requirements of Rule 11C of the Rules and hence it
was rightly upheld by the High Court in impugned
order.
12. Rule 11C was inserted in the Rules with effect
from 28.04.2012. Rule 11C(1) reads as under:
“11C. (1) Registration as multisystem
operator(1) On being satisfied that the
applicant fulfils the eligibility criteria
specified under rule 11B and the
requirements of rule 11A, the
registering authority shall, subject to
the terms and conditions specified in
rule 11D and the security clearance
5
from the Central Government, issue
certificate of registration.”
13. It is clear from mere reading of the Rule 11C(1)
that grant of permission is subject to issue of
security clearance from the Central Government to
the applicant (appellant in this case).
14. In this case, admittedly the appellant failed to
obtain the security clearance as provided under
Rule 11C of the Rules. It was a mandatory
requirement as provided under Rule 11C of the
Rules. Since the grant of permission was subject to
obtaining of the security clearance from the
concerned Ministry, the competent authority was
justified in cancelling the conditional permission for
want of security clearance.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant, however,
argued that the appellant was not afforded any
opportunity of hearing before cancelling the
6
permission and, therefore, the impugned
cancellation order is rendered bad in law having
been passed without following the principle of
natural justice and fair play. We find no merit in
this submission.
16. In somewhat similar circumstances, this Court
while repelling this submission laid down the
following principles of law in the case of Ex
Armymen’s Protection Services Private Limited
vs. Union of India And Others (2014) 5 SCC 409
in para 16 and 17 which read as under:
“16. What is in the interest of national
security is not a question of law. It is a
matter of policy. It is not for the court to
decide whether something is in the interest
of the State or not. It should be left to the
executive. To quote Lord Hoffman in Secy. of
State for Home Deptt. v. Rehman : (AC p.
192C)
“… [in the matter] of national security is
not a question of law. It is a matter of
judgment and policy. Under the Constitution
of the United Kingdom and most other
countries, decisions as to whether something
7
is or is not in the interests of national
security are not a matter for judicial
decision. They are entrusted to the
executive.”
17. Thus, in a situation of national
security, a party cannot insist for the strict
observance of the principles of natural
justice. In such cases, it is the duty of the
court to read into and provide for statutory
exclusion, if not expressly provided in the
rules governing the field. Depending on the
facts of the particular case, it will however be
open to the court to satisfy itself whether
there were justifiable facts, and in that
regard, the court is entitled to call for the
files and see whether it is a case where the
interest of national security is involved. Once
the State is of the stand that the issue
involves national security, the court shall not
disclose the reasons to the affected party.”
17. Having perused the note filed by the Union of
India, which resulted in cancellation of permission,
we are of the considered opinion that in the facts of
this case, the appellant was not entitled to claim
any prior notice before passing of the cancellation
order in question.
18. In other words, we are of the view that the
principles of natural justice were not violated in this
8
case in the light of the law laid down by this Court
in the case of ExArmymen’s Protection Services
(supra) inasmuch as the appellant
Private Limited
was not entitled to claim any prior notice before
cancellation of permission.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal
is found to be devoid of any merit. It is accordingly
dismissed.
20. However, the appellant would be at liberty to
apply for grant of fresh permission in accordance
with law.
IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.121 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 33411 of 2015)
In the light of our detailed order passed in Civil
Appeal No. ……………of 2019 @ SLP (C) No. 33244
of 2015, this appeal is also dismissed.
9
2. However, the appellant would be at liberty to
apply for grant of fresh permission in accordance
with law.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
………..................................J.
[INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi;
January 07, 2019.
10