I&B ministry, not Home ministry, should take a call on Sun TV

The media group Sun TV, which is promoted by Kalanithi Maran, has seen a crash in market valuation. Investors stampeded for the exit upon news reports that the Ministry of Home Affairs had refused to renew the security clearances for the TV channels run by the group. Hence, some were apprehensive that the group would be forced to cease its broadcasting activity. Sun TV is the number one broadcaster in the southern states and it runs 33 TV channels and 40 FM radio stations. A security clearance is required from the home ministry in order to broadcast on TV or radio. That clearance must be renewed every 10 years. Apparently, despite a favourable representation from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B), the security clearance has been refused for the TV channels on the grounds that there are cases against the Maran brothers, Kalanithi and Dayanidhi. Security clearances had already been refused for the FM stations. However, Sun appealed to the Madras High Court, which has offered interim relief and allowed the radio stations to continue running. Presumably, the group will take recourse to similar appeals, once the order is officially communicated.

It is an interesting situation. Several points of principle are involved. Kalanithi Maran owns 75 per cent of Sun TV. The Maran brothers face a Central Bureau of Investigation probe over the alleged allotment of 300 high-speed Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd telephone lines to the residence of the former communications and information technology minister, Dayanidhi Maran. Those lines were then allegedly extended for use to Sun. There are two other pending criminal probes - the Aircel-Maxis case and an Enforcement Directorate case of alleged money laundering.

The brothers are, however, not really a flight risk. Further, they are under investigation in their individual capacities. The Sun TV channels and FM stations have been running for years and claim an audience of over 250 million across the south. Sun TV holds its annual general meetings, releases its results, pays its taxes and complies with other corporate requirements. It adheres to the broadcast guidelines or, at least, has not been accused of any such violations. Shutting down the normal daily business because of a home ministry investigation of the majority owner (and his brother) would be a knee-jerk decision. In analogous situations, such as the Satyam case where the chief executive-promoter and several senior managers were investigated for fraud, every effort was made to allow the information technology major to pursue its daily business. If the channels are taken off the air, it would penalise many innocent stakeholders such as employees, advertisers, content providers and so on. It would also penalise shareholders. Institutions hold about 19-20 per cent stake in the company, and, of course, individual shareholders would face losses as well. Regardless of the result of the investigations, there would be no restitution for such losses as are suffered by those stakeholders and shareholders.

In this case, it so happens that the normal business of the corporate group is broadcasting. So there are issues of free speech as well. Is it right to prevent TV channels broadcasting because the majority owner is allegedly a criminal? It is questionable whether the home ministry should be making this judgement call. The I&B ministry is probably the competent authority.