Home, I&B ministries challenge order favouring Marans-owned Kal Cables

Earlier, a single judge bench had set aside a ministry directive to switch off transmission of Kal Cables

The information & broadcasting and the home ministries have filed an appeal in the Madras High Court against a single Bench order, which set aside the I&B ministry’s order to switch off transmission of Kal Cables, a multi-system operator (MSO) owned by media tycoon Kalanithi Maran’s family.

On August 20, 2014, the I&B ministry had ordered cancellation of Kal Cables’ licence and gave 15 days to the MSO to cut its signal. The I&B ministry said that in view of denial of security clearance by the home ministry, Kal Cables could not be granted regular registration.

The MSO challenged this order at the Madras High Court, saying it was not given an opportunity to present its case. It also alleged the I&B ministry’s decision was “against the principles of natural justice”.

After hearing the company's petition, judge V Ramasubramanian passed an order on September 5, 2014, setting aside the I&B ministry’s order. The judge also questioned the government’s rationale in acting against one MSO, while the same was not applied against the satellite commercial television channels of the same promoters. The latest appeal, filed by the secretaries of I&B and home ministries, comes in the wake of the home ministry’s reported move not to clearance for Sun Television Network’s 33 channels.

The appeal argues that judge Ramasubramanian’s allowing the company’s petition is against “well-settled principles of law”. It says the judge ought to have considered the fact that the approval for Kal Cables was given for cable television network services on the condition the company should obtain security clearance from the government. The ministries further argue that the judge, after rejecting the stand of Kal Cables that the Maran brothers — Kalanithi and his brother former Union minister Dayanidhi — have nothing to do with the company, ought to have rejected the writ petition as they have come forward with a false case.

The appeal says that the judge, having directed the appellant to go into the issue as to why the security file relating to Kal Cables was kept away for seven years, ought to have dismissed the writ petition.

Earlier, arguing before the  judge, the company had said: “None of the management representatives, board members or shareholders are facing any legal issues, no FIRs (first information reports) filed, no criminal proceedings or complaints against them.” The counsel appearing for the company had then noted that 75 per cent of the shareholding of Kal Cables is held by Mallika Maran, mother of the Maran brothers, and the balance 25 per cent held by D K Enterprise, a private entity.