TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court upholds cancellation of MSO permission in digital system areas due to security concerns.</h1> <h3>Digi Cable Network (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Versus Union of India and Ors.</h3> Digi Cable Network (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Versus Union of India and Ors. - TMI Issues:1. Permission granted for operating as Multi System Operator (MSO) cancelled due to lack of security clearance.2. Challenge to the cancellation order through a writ petition.3. Justification of the High Court's decision in upholding the cancellation.4. Compliance with Rule 11C of the Cable Television Network (Amendment) Rules, 2012.5. Allegation of violation of principles of natural justice in cancellation of permission.Analysis:1. The case involved the cancellation of permission granted to the Appellant for operating as a Multi System Operator (MSO) in Digital Addressable System (DAS) areas, due to the lack of security clearance from the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Appellant challenged this cancellation through a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay.2. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the cancellation as just, legal, and proper. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court to determine whether the High Court's decision was justified in dismissing the writ petition and upholding the cancellation order dated 03.09.2014.3. The Supreme Court analyzed Rule 11C of the Cable Television Network (Amendment) Rules, 2012, which specifies that the grant of permission as an MSO is subject to obtaining security clearance from the Central Government. Since the Appellant failed to obtain this mandatory security clearance, the cancellation of permission was deemed justified by the competent authority.4. The Appellant argued that the cancellation order violated the principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity for a hearing before cancellation. However, the Supreme Court referred to the case law and established that in matters concerning national security, strict adherence to natural justice principles may not apply. The Court emphasized that decisions related to national security are entrusted to the executive and not subject to judicial intervention.5. Based on the facts of the case and the document filed by the Union of India regarding the reasons for cancellation, the Supreme Court concluded that the Appellant was not entitled to prior notice before the cancellation of permission. The Court held that the principles of natural justice were not violated in this case, in line with the legal precedent cited.6. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found the appeal devoid of merit and dismissed it. However, the Court granted the Appellant the liberty to apply for fresh permission in accordance with the law. The decision in Civil Appeal No. 121 of 2019 was also dismissed in alignment with the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2019.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
