Supreme Court of India
DIGI CABLE NETWORK (INDIA) PVT. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. on 7 January 2019
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2019] 1 S.C.R. 88
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
ADIGI CABLE NETWORK (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2019)
BJANUARY 07, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Cable Television Network Rules, 1994:
s. 11C [as inserted by Cable Television Network (Amendment)CRules, 2012] – Initial permission granted u/r. 11C, cancelled on theground that “security clearance” was not granted – Cancellationchallenged in writ petition – High Court dismissed the petition – Onappeal, held: Cancellation order was in conformity with therequirements of r.11C – Principles of natural justice also not violatedas the applicant was not entitled to any prior notice beforeDcancellation of permission – In cases of national security, a partycannot insist for strict observance of principles of natural justice –Principles of Natural Justice.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
EHELD: 1. The impugned order of cancellation was passedin conformity with the requirements of Rule 11C of CableTelevision Network Rules, 1994 and hence it was rightly upheldby the High Court in impugned order. It is clear from mere readingof the Rule 11C(1) that grant of permission is subject to issue ofsecurity clearance from the Central Government to the applicant.FIn the present case, admittedly the appellant failed to obtain thesecurity clearance. It was a mandatory requirement as providedunder Rule 11C of the Rules. Since the grant of permission wassubject to obtaining of the security clearance from the concernedMinistry, the competent authority was justified in cancelling theGconditional permission for want of security clearance. [Paras 11,13 and 14][90-G-H; 91-C-D]
2. In a situation of national security, a party cannot insistfor the strict observance of the principles of natural justice. Theprinciples of natural justice were not violated in the present case, H
DIGI CABLE NETWORK (INDIA) PVT. LTD. v. UNION OFINDIA
inasmuch as the appellant was not entitled to claim any prior noticebefore cancellation of permission. [Paras 16, 18][92-E-F]
Ex-Armymen’s Protection Services Private Limited v.Union of India and Others (2014) 5 SCC 409 : [2014]3 SCR 359 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 3 SCR 359relied onPara 16
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 120 of
2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.2015 of the High Courtof Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 58 of 2015.
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 121 of 2019.
Jay Savla, Ms. Renuka Sahu, Prabhat Chaurasia, Jasdeep SinghDhillon, Lakshmeesh S. Kamath, Sharath Sampath, Manikya Khanna,Ms. Kriti Bhalla, Pratyaksh Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, A. K. Panda, Sr. Adv., Rajesh Ranjan, R.K. Verma, Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Ms. Charanya L. Kumaran, ChokitanVikram Shekhar Papta, Chinmayee Chandra for Gurmeet Singh Makker,Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
IN CIVIL APPEAL No. 120 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 33244 of 2015)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and orderdated 30.10.2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in WritPetition No.58 of 2015 whereby the Division Bench of the High Courtdismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.
3. The controversy involved in this appeal lies in a narrow compassas would be clear from the facts stated hereinbelow.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
A4. By letter dated 12.06.2012 (Annexure P-2) the appellant wasgranted permission by the Government of India under Rule 11C of theCable Television Network (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (hereinafterreferred to as “the Rules”) for operating as Multi System Operator(MSO) in the Digital Addressable System (DAS) notified areas videnotification dated 11.11.2011.B
5. This permission was, however, cancelled by the Governmentof India vide order dated 03.09.2014 on the ground that the Ministry ofHome Affairs has denied issuance of “security clearance” to theappellant. In other words, since the Ministry of Home Affairs did notgrant security clearance to the appellant, the permission initially grantedCto 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 atMumbai. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petitionand upheld the order of cancellation as being just, legal and proper whichDhas given rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave inthis Court by the unsuccessful writ petitioner.
7. So, the short question involved in this appeal is whether theHigh Court was justified in dismissing the appellant’s writ petition and, inconsequence, was justified in upholding the order dated 03.09.2014cancelling the permission which was granted to the appellant vide letterEdated 12.06.2012.
8. Heard Mr. Jay Savla, learned counsel for the appellant andMs. Pinky Anand, learned ASG for the respondents.
9. It may be mentioned here that Ms. Pinky Anand, learnedAdditional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India-respondentFfiled the copy of the reasons in a sealed cover which was made basis todeny security clearance to the appellant and which led to cancellation/withdrawal of permission granted to the appellant. The document filed istaken on record for perusal.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalGof the record of the case, we find no merit in this appeal.
11. In our considered opinion, the impugned order of cancellationwas passed in conformity with the requirements of Rule 11C of theRules and hence it was rightly upheld by the High Court in impugnedorder.
H
12. Rule 11C was inserted in the Rules with effect from 28.04.2012.Rule 11C(1) reads as under:
“11C. (1) Registration as multi-system operator-(1) Onbeing satisfied that the applicant fulfils the eligibility criteriaspecified under rule 11B and the requirements of rule 11A,the registering authority shall, subject to the terms andconditions specified in rule 11D and the security clearancefrom the Central Government, issue certificate ofregistration.”
13. It is clear from mere reading of the Rule 11C(1) that grant ofpermission is subject to issue of security clearance from the CentralGovernment to the applicant (appellant in this case).
14. In this case, admittedly the appellant failed to obtain the securityclearance as provided under Rule 11C of the Rules. It was a mandatoryrequirement as provided under Rule 11C of the Rules. Since the grantof permission was subject to obtaining of the security clearance fromthe concerned Ministry, the competent authority was justified in cancellingthe conditional permission for want of security clearance.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, argued that theappellant was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before cancellingthe permission and, therefore, the impugned cancellation order is renderedbad in law having been passed without following the principle of naturaljustice and fair play. We find no merit in this submission.
16. In somewhat similar circumstances, this Court while repellingthis submission laid down the following principles of law in the case ofEx-Armymen’s Protection Services Private Limited vs. Union ofIndia And Others (2014) 5 SCC 409 in para 16 and 17 which read asunder:
“16. What is in the interest of national security is not aquestion of law. It is a matter of policy. It is not for thecourt to decide whether something is in the interest of theState or not. It should be left to the executive. To quoteLord Hoffman in Secy. of State for Home Deptt. v. Rehman:(AC p. 192C)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
A
“… [in the matter] of national security is not a question oflaw. It is a matter of judgment and policy. Under theConstitution of the United Kingdom and most othercountries, decisions as to whether something is or is not inthe interests of national security are not a matter for judicialdecision. They are entrusted to the executive.”
B
17. Thus, in a situation of national security, a party cannotinsist for the strict observance of the principles of naturaljustice. In such cases, it is the duty of the court to read intoand provide for statutory exclusion, if not expressly providedin the rules governing the field. Depending on the facts ofCthe particular case, it will however be open to the court tosatisfy itself whether there were justifiable facts, and in thatregard, the court is entitled to call for the files and seewhether it is a case where the interest of national securityis involved. Once the State is of the stand that the issueDinvolves national security, the court shall not disclose thereasons to the affected party.”
17. Having perused the note filed by the Union of India, whichresulted in cancellation of permission, we are of the considered opinionthat in the facts of this case, the appellant was not entitled to claim anyEprior notice before passing of the cancellation order in question.
18. In other words, we are of the view that the principles of naturaljustice were not violated in this case in the light of the law laid down bythis Court in the case of Ex-Armymen’s Protection Services PrivateLimited (supra) inasmuch as the appellant was not entitled to claim anyFprior notice before cancellation of permission.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is found to bedevoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed.
20. However, the appellant would be at liberty to apply for grantof fresh permission in accordance with law.
G
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. 120 of2019 @ SLP (C) No. 33244 of 2015, this appeal is also dismissed.
H
DIGI CABLE NETWORK (INDIA) PVT. LTD. v. UNION OFINDIA [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
2. However, the appellant would be at liberty to apply for grant offresh permission in accordance with law.
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Appeals dismissed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H