Summary
The Supreme Court upheld cancellation of conditional permission to operate as a multi-system cable operator after denial of mandatory security clearance. Having examined the Union’s reasons in a sealed cover, it held that prior notice was not required on the facts under the national-security principles it applied. Both appeals were dismissed, with liberty to seek fresh permission in accordance with law.
Issues
- Whether denial of mandatory security clearance justified cancellation of the conditional permission.
- Whether absence of prior notice invalidated cancellation on the facts.
Provisions considered
- Rule 11C(1), Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, as amended in 2012Registration was conditional on Central Government security clearance; its absence justified cancellation of the conditional permission. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14)
Held
- Security clearance was a mandatory condition of registration. The operator’s failure to obtain it entitled the competent authority to cancel the conditional permission. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14)
- Applying Ex-Armymen’s Protection Services, the Court examined the Union’s note and held that prior notice was not required in this national-security case. Its ruling rested on the facts and the material inspected by the Court. (¶¶ 9, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- The principal and connected appeals were dismissed; each appellant retained liberty to apply afresh in accordance with law. (¶¶ 19, 20, Connected appeal paragraphs 1–2)
Result
Both appeals dismissed; cancellation upheld. Liberty to apply for fresh permission in accordance with law preserved.