1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C)No. 927 OF 2016

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

In the matter of:

DR SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY . PETITIONER

Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR . RESPONDENTS

REJOINDER AFFIDAVIT BY THE PETITIONER IN

RESPONSE TO THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY
RESPONDENT NO. 1.

Through:

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY

PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
AB-14, PANDARA ROAD,
NEW DELHI
NEW DELHI
DATED:
 2

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C)No. 927 OF 2016

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

In the matter of:

DR SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY . PETITIONER

Versus
UNION OF INDIA &ANR . RESPONDENTS
INDEX

S.No. PARTICULARS PAGES

1. Rejoinder by the Petitioner to the
Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of
Respondent No.1
2. Annexure P-11: Copy of the letter
dated 03/03/2016 of the MIB
3. Annexure P-12: Copy of the letter
dated 06/04/2015 of the MHA.
4. Annexure P-13: Copy of the order for
the constitution of the Inter-
Ministerial Committee dated
07.12.2016
5. Annexure P-14: Copy of the letter
dated 22/12/2016 of the Honble
Minister of MIB
Through:

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY

PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
AB-14, PANDARA ROAD,
NEW DELHI
NEW DELHI
DATED:
 3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C)No. 927 OF 2016

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

In the matter of:

DR SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY . PETITIONER

Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR . RESPONDENTS

REJOINDER BY THE PETITIONER TO THE COUNTER

AFFIDAVIT DATED 21.02.2017 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

I, Subramanian Swamy S/O Sitarama Swamy, AB-14, Pandara

Road, New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as
under:
1. That I am the petitioner in the aforesaid matter and being
acquainted with the facts and circumstances of this case I am
competent to depose about the same and affirm this affidavit.

2. That I have read the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent

and have understood the contents thereof.

3. That all the contentions, averments and submissions made in

the Counter Affidavit are denied except those specifically
admitted herein. The contents of the petition and the grounds of
the petition are reiterated herein and are not repeated for the
sake of brevity.
 4

A. REJOINDER ON PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:

4. That in reply to the preliminary submission No. 1 it is

respectfully submitted that the issues raised by the Petitioner in
the present petition is not against any particular company or
individual but on the aspect of a loop hole free National
Security Policy. The dismissal of the SLP as mentioned was
only related to the fact that whether a security clearance is
required prior to the application or not. The SLP was no way
connected with the issue in question before this Honble Court.
It is submitted that in the matter before this Honble Court the
government has never disclosed before the Honble High Court
or before this Court that the government has made the Security
Guidelines in June, 2015 or further the Revised Guidelines in
December, 2015.

5. That in reply to the preliminary submission No.2 it is submitted

that the policy and procedure as adopted by the Government on
the Grant of Security Clearance is full of ambiguity and
confusion, the ministries themselves are finding it difficult to
take a decision and therefore had evolve new ways to tackle the
security clearance which has a direct bearing on the National
Security of the country. It is submitted that due to the
contradictory and confusing stands of the government the
different Honble High Courts of the country have come with
divergent views which could impact the National Security of
the country as it can be used to bypass the security clearance by
anti-national elements. Therefore the present petition has been
filed by the Petitioner on the larger question of National
Security of the country.

6. It is further submitted that the present writ petition filed by the

Petitioner only for the benefit of the citizens of the country and
keeping in mind the issue of national security. The Petitioner
being a citizen of the country has the duty to expose illegality in
the functioning of the government and their decisions which
can be a threat to the national security as well. It is most
 5

humbly submitted that the concept of Public Interest Litigation

(PIL) is in consonance with the principles enshrined in Article
39A of the Constitution of India to protect and deliver prompt
social justice with the help of law.

7. The Petitioner has filed Public Interest Litigation(s) on

multifarious issues across social, cultural, economic issues
which have been agitated and argued by him personally. The
Honble Courts have considered and adjudicated upon such
public interest litigation while delivering landmark judgments
and have appreciated the efforts of and contribution by the
Petitioner to the growth of law.

Public Interest Litigation is a judicial instrument and the basic

purpose of which is to achieve public good. Further in the
present matter the issue of national security and illegalities,
abuse of discretion, arbitrariness in security clearance is
involved; which directly affects the public at large.

8. That in reply to the Para No. 3 of the preliminary submission

raised by the Respondent it is respectfully submitted as follows:
(a) As per the counter affidavit filed by the R-1/MHA, it had
formulated a policy guidelines on 30/06/2015 for assessment of
proposals received by the MHA from the perspective of
national security. A list of the sectors where the security
clearance are referred to the MHA is also mentioned which
includes some crucial sectors included the security clearance for
FM Radio and TV channels. After getting the inputs from the
expert bodies like intelligence and law enforcement agencies,
the assessment is done by the MHA on the basis of the threat,
probability of materialization and overall impact, based on a
scale of reasonableness. It is also submitted by the Respondent
No.1/MHA that for the objective assessment of the inputs
received from the different agencies the MHA had devised a
tentative security rating parameters in its policy guidelines
dated 30/06/2015 which also includes prosecution for various
 6

economic offences. Thereafter the MHA decides on the aspect

of the grant of security clearance.
It is respectfully submitted that the Respondent No.1/MHA has
framed the above-mentioned security guidelines dated June,
2015, which are exhaustive consisting of various aspects on
which security clearance should be examined by the Ministry.

(b) That the policy Guidelines dated 30/06/2015 was later

amended as Revised Guidelines on 09/12/2015 when it was felt
that denial of security clearance to entities on the ground of
certain security rating parameters relating to the economic
offences could adversely impact fresh investment while it not
being a threat to the unity, integrity & sovereignty of the
country being the core issues. The Respondent No.1/MHA
decided to concentrate and deal itself with the core issues of
security only and regarding the other economic offences like
Prosecution for organized crimes, Prevention of Corruption
Act, financial frauds, money laundering under PMLA, etc, the
concerned Administrative Ministry to see and decide whether
they affect their rules, policy, procedure, guidelines, conditions,
etc or the economic sovereignty of the country and take a
view accordingly. The information/ inputs regarding the
economic offences would be shared with the concerned
ministry, but the MHA would not decline the security clearance
on this ground if the core issues are not affected.
It is the humble submission of the Petitioner that Respondent
No.1/ MHA should be scrutinizing and examining the
applications received by it for security clearance instead of
delegating the said duty to the Administrative Ministry for
examining the economic offences related to security clearance.
It is submitted that this delegation of grant of security clearance
to the Administrative Ministry is per se bad and in
contravention to the basic principle of the delegation of power
and also the Constitution of India. The Petitioner wishes to seek
directions of this Honble Court on the following issues
 7

pertaining to the decision of the MHA to the above delegation

qua security clearance:

i. The MHA receives expert information from its network

like IB, CBI etc. about the threat of a person/company
pertaining to security clearance.
ii. The sharing of the information or inputs by the MHA
with the Administrative Ministry may amount to sharing
the vital /sensitive inputs with the MIB or other ministry,
which may not be in the interest of overall security
system.
iii. The officers/ministry who had given the
information/security input may be exposed if the
information/inputs are given by the MHA to the
concerned ministry.
iv. The Administrative Ministry is not an expert ministry or
body to evaluate the security inputs given by the MHA as
there is no mechanism & expertise to deal with such
security inputs. Without the mechanism such ministry is
not competent and therefore cannot decide fairly and
correctly which can be a potent threat to the National
Security.
v. The Administrative Ministry cannot sit in appeal in
respect of the threat perception evaluated by the MHA
which is the expert domain of the ministry.
vi. The Administrative Ministry shall not be responsible if
the security clearance is granted and thereafter the
security threat is actually caused to the country because it
will be the responsibility and exclusive domain of MHA
to deal with such situation. Therefore, the ministry which
is responsible to deal with the security issues should be
made responsible for grant of security clearance also.
vii. Since the grant of security clearance is now being
delegated to the concerned Administrative Ministry it can
lead to a ministerial bias for that ministry to grant
clearance.
 8

viii. The concerned Administrative Ministry can also show

vindictiveness against a particular company or individual
as now they are having power to grant or reject the
security clearance.
ix. The said delegation will certainly create unevenness in
the Balance of power between two ministries. It is
submitted that the system of check and balance is an
important part of our Constitution also; with it each
ministry can limit the power of the others. This
delegation will create a concentration of power with one
ministry only and making it more and more powerful
than the other.
x. That the maxim Delegatus Non Potest Delegare is a
very well known principle in Constitutional and
Administrative Law which means that sub-delegation of
powers is not allowed or in other words to whom the
powers are delegated cannot himself further delegate that
power. It is submitted that National Security which as
under the provisions of Article 53 of r/w Article 77(3) of
the Constitution of India, the President has framed
Government of India (Allocation of Business Rules
1961) and Government of India (Transaction of Business
Rule 1961) for conduct of executive business of the
Union and under these rules matters pertaining to
National Security is delegated to Honble Minister of
Home Affairs only and therefore the delegation by the
MHA in the form of Revised Guidelines to the
Administrative Ministry, cannot be done.

(c) That even after this it was seen that the Administrative
Ministries were finding it very difficult to take a decision upon
the inputs related to the economic offences as shared by the
MHA. Now thereafter the UOI has decided to set up an inter-
ministerial committee to make the recommendations on the
inputs of the economic offences as provided by the expert
ministry for the security clearance.
 9

(d) That it could be seen from the above-mentioned steps taken

by the Government that the Guidelines on National Security is
full of ambiguity and confusion, the ministries themselves are
finding it difficult to take a decision and therefore the
government had to evolve new ways to tackle the security
clearance which has a direct bearing on the National Security of
the country. This clearly shows the casual manner in which the
UOI is handling the present issue.

(e) That it is submitted that where the criminal cases are

pending or FIR is registered against an Individual/Company,
security clearance should not be granted on the pretext of non-
conviction of the said individual/ Company.

It is submitted that there is a contradicting, wavering and

conflicting stand of the Union of India and due to it different
Honble High Courts have hold different views which are not in
consonance with the policy of the government and as a result it
is exposed the National Security to number of threats.

Like the Honble Madras High Court has directed to grant the
security clearance to M/S Sun TV Network Pvt Ltd despite the
pendency of the charge sheet against its director and major
shareholder Sh. Kalanidhi Maran. Also the Honble Delhi High
Court in the matter of Digital Radio Broadcasting Pvt Ltd has
granted the security clearance despite the pendency of cases
against 21% (indirect) shareholding of Sh. Kalanidhi Maran on
the pretext that Clause 3.8 of the tender document-NIA
explicitly do not provide the security clearance of shareholders.
Rather in fact Annexure 10.8 forming part of Clause 3.8 duly
provides for security clearance of shareholders.

(f) That it is submitted that the ambiguity and vagueness in the

working and thinking of the government can be shown from the
fact that in one matter titled as Positive TV Pvt Ltd vs. UOI
 10

numbered Petition No. 184/2016 as the MHA has denied the

security clearance on account of the pendency and involvement
of the Director/Shareholder in the chit fund scam and when the
said matter was filed before the Ld Tribunal TDSAT the MHA
had vehemently argued that economic offences are threat to
National Security and therefore the security clearance should
not be granted. It is submitted that in this matter the letter dated
03/03/2016 of the Respondent No.2/MIB to one M/S Positive
TV Pvt Ltd wherein the security clearance to the company was
denied and stated that even on review of the security clearance
the Respondent No.1/MHA had reiterated their stand on denial
of security clearance. It is submitted that the Revised
Guidelines were formed in December, 2015 and therefore as
accordingly the security clearance should have been considered
by the Administrative Ministry i.e., MIB only and not by MHA
in this matter. Therefore it can be clearly seen that the
ministries have been taking stand as per their convenience and
not strictly by the guidelines. The letter dated 03/03/2016 of the
MIB in annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure- P-11
(Pages to ).

(g) That it is submitted that the Respondent No.1/MHA in one

matter namely M/S Mahuaa Media Pvt Ltd had shifted and
made contradictory stand time and again on various occasions
as mentioned below:
(i) MHA had denied the security clearance vide letter
dated 06/04/2015 because of the Board Director of the
company being involved in cheating and forgery with
bank.
The letter dated 06/04/2015 of the MHA in annexed
herewith and is marked as Annexure- P- 12 (Pages to
(ii) That MHA after the Revised Guidelines dated
09/12/2015 in the matter titled as Mahuaa TV Ltd vs.
UOI numbered as W.P (C) No. 2031/2016 before the
Honble Delhi High Court had filed an Affidavit and had
said as under:
 11

The Ministry of Home Affairs also seeks to create

barriers against investment of proceeds of crime,
terrorism, corruption, financial frauds, etc into sensitive
sectors of the economy so that the economic integrity of
the country is not compromised by infusion of bad
money.
This itself shows that the MHA had been taking different
stands at different level as per their convenience. The
stand taken by the MHA in the matters of in the Positive
TV, Mahuaa TV is totally contradictory to their revised
guidelines and are after their amendment of the
guidelines dated 09/12/2015. It is submitted that MHA
has firstly not mentioned about their amendment of the
Revised Guidelines in any of these matters and secondly
the government have consistently stick to this stand that
economic offences or pendency of the criminal case
should be considered as a threat to the national security.
Whereas in the M/S Sun TV Network Pvt Ltd matter, the
Honble Madras High Court has held that since the
Director/Shareholder of the SUN group are not convicted
yet and the cases are still pending therefore they do not
disqualify and pendency of criminal cases cannot be a
criteria for consideration for security clearance. It is
submitted that the interpretation as given by the Honble
High Court is contrary to the policy and guidelines of the
government but the government has conveniently
accepted the order of the Honble High Court and
decided not to file appeal against the order thereby taking
a complete contrary stand as compare to the other
companies like Mahuaa TV, Positive TV wherein the
government has clearly said that the economic offences
are a threat to national security and it cannot be ignored
while considering the security clearance.
(iii) That similarly, on one hand the government in the
Mahuaa TV matter had issued Show Cause Notice to the
company since their security clearance was cancelled due
 12

to involvement in the economic offences and their

licenses were also cancelled but on the other hand in the
Sun TV matter in spite of the involvement of the
Director. Shareholder and Company itself facing serious
economic offences had never issued any Show Cause
Notice to them.

This shows that the government has been taking different stand
in different situations as per their convenience on the grant of
security clearance even after amendment in the
guidelines/policy.

(h) That it is submitted that as per the Revised Guidelines dated

09/12/2015, MHA will grant the security clearance in respect to
the core issues of National Security i.e., unity, integrity and
sovereignty of the country and the inputs related to the
economic offences will be shared with the concerned
Administrative Ministry for taking the decision. It is submitted
that by this decision the government has posed a serious threat
to the National security because the concerned Administrative
Ministry is not an expert ministry to deal with these issues.
These Ministries do not have a mechanism to consider the
inputs qua the economic offences since it is job of an expert
body which should be done by the expert. By exposing this
sensitive information and inputs the government has put the
security of the country at risk. It is also further submitted that
on this issue the government has ignored the potential threat
which can seriously compromise the national security of the
country.

(i) That the Administrative Ministry which has no expertise or

experience or special trained departments to handle this aspect
and in this process are most likely compromise the national
security which as under the provisions of Article 53 of r/w
Article 77(3) of the constitution of India, the President has
framed Government of India (Allocation of Business Rules
 13

1961) and Government of India (Transaction of Business Rule

1961) for conduct of executive business of the Union and under
these rules matters pertaining to National Security is delegated
to Honble Minister of Home Affairs only. Therefore this
delegation by the Revised Guidelines dated 09/12/2015 is
against the spirit of the delegation of power and also against the
spirit of the Constitution of India.

(j) That the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Ex-

Armymens Protection Services Pvt Ltd vs. UOI reported as
(2014) 5 SCC 409 has clarified this position that the issue of
national security is an executive job and the economic factor is
also a part of National Security. The Honble Supreme Court
further added that the term National Security would generally
include economic solidarity and strength. It is respectfully
submitted that by this Revised Guidelines and later by Inter-
Ministerial Committee government have now tried to segregate
the Economic Security from the National Security. It is
submitted that in todays world and changing times Economic
Security is as important part of National Security as the core
issues are.

(k) It is submitted that the confusion and ambiguity of the

policy of the government is itself showing from their decisions
by first amending the Guidelines and then forming an inter-
ministerial committee to take the decision on a subject which
directly affects the economic sovereignty of the country which
is a crucial aspect for the National security of the country.

(l) It is submitted that the order for the constitution of the Inter-
Ministerial Committee dated 07.12.2016 clearly states that the
MHA is granting only the conditional clearance on the core
issues with regard to the National Security and the inputs
regarding economic offences are to be considered by the
concerned Administrative Ministry only. It is submitted that the
ambiguity in the decision making of the security clearance by
 14

the government can be seen from the letter dated 22.12.2016 of

the Honble Minister of MIB to the Petitioner wherein it is
stated that Respondent No.1/MHA had conveyed the security
clearance to one M/S South Asia FM Ltd and M/S Kal Radio
Ltd in October, 2016 with respect to the 2nd batch of E-Auction
of FM Radio and on that basis the Respondent No.2/MIB had
on their own had granted license to these companies for 2 nd
batch and also for 1st batch. It is submitted that for the 1st batch
MHA had rejected the security clearance for these companies
and now MIB on their own had decided to grant security
clearance without even getting the core issues security
clearance from the expert Ministry i.e., MHA. The copy of the
order for the constitution of the Inter-Ministerial Committee
dated 07.12.2016 and the letter dated 22/12/2016 of the Honble
Minister of MIB are annexed herewith and are marked as
Annexure- P-13 & P-14. (Pages to ).

(m) It is submitted that recently Respondent No.2/Ministry of

Information and Broadcasting had issued a Notification dated
27/10/2016 thereby giving the license to one company namely
M/S South Asia FM Ltd for the e-auction of FM Radio
channels which themselves were the accused in one PMLA case
and thereby totally ignoring and in contrary to their guidelines
and stand in other matters like Positive TV, Mahuaa TV, S TV.

(n) That in the matter titled as Digital Radio Broadcasting Ltd

vs. UOI, numbered as W.P (C) No. 6891-92/2015 before
Honble Delhi High Court it was held that allegations against
the shareholders of the company should not be considered as
against the company per se and therefore it will not raise the
security concerns.

It is submitted that by this interpretation any criminal, habitual

offender can use the policy and approach of the government to
get the security clearance. Therefore it is humbly submitted that
the security clearance policy of the government had to be made
 15

water tight and full proof so that the security of the country
should never be compromised.

B. REJOINDER ON PARAWISE SUBMISSIONS:

9. That the contents of Para 1 of the Parawise submissions

merit no rejoinder from the Petitioner.

10. That in reply to the contents of the Para 2 to 4 of the

Parawise submissions it is respectfully submitted that the
Petitioner in the present petition is not against any
individual or company rather the contention of the
Petitioner is that the government is compromising on the
National Security of the country by taking different stand
in different situations as per their convenience. It is
submitted that the different High Courts of the Country
are coming to conclusions which are contrary to the
policy of the government only because the government
itself is unable to take a firm and clear stand. On one
hand the government opposes the pendency of criminal
case while granting the security clearance while on the
other hand it granted the security clearance to the
companies like M/S South Asia Pvt Ltd, which itself was
the accused in the economic offences and facing the
charges before the court. Petitioner only wants that the
security of the country should be of paramount
importance and it should never be compromised even at
the cost of an investment opportunity. It is further
submitted that it wrong to say that the present policy of
the government is adequate to take care the imperatives
of national security. It is submitted that the delegation
done by the MHA in the form of the Amended
Guidelines of December, 2015 has exposed the National
Security to a level where any offender, anti-national
element can take a benefit and pose a serious threat to the
security of the country since the Administrative Ministry
 16

to whom the delegation has been done to handle and

decide the security inputs are not expert in this matter
and nor they have the mechanism to deal with the
security inputs. It is submitted that the MHA has to be
the only ministry to deal and decide with anything to do
with the National Security since it is their duty and
responsibility to protect the country from any threat.

11. That in reply to the contents of the Para 5 of the Parawise

submissions it is respectfully submitted that
inconsistency, vacuum and non-uniformity in the policy
guidelines of the government can be seen from number of
cases where the government has granted or rejected the
security clearance as per their convenience rather than
the policy. It is submitted that various High Courts have
also come to different conclusions only because of the
ambiguity in the implementation of the policy of
government therefore it is humbly submitted by the
Petitioner that in the matter of National Security no
ambiguity or inconsistency should take place as it
directly impacts the security of the country.

12. That in reply to the contents of the Para 1 to 7 under the

heading Before Madras High Court of the Parawise
submissions it is submitted that in the matter namely M/S
Sun TV Network Pvt Ltd before the Honble Madras
High Court, the Honble Court has granted the security
clearance to SUN TV despite pendency of the charge
sheet against its Director and major Shareholder namely
Sh. Kalanidhi Maran and the government herein choose
not to file an appeal in this matter and thereby accepted
this stand of the Honble High Court which is totally
contrary to their policy and also contrary to their stand as
taken in Mahuaa TV, Positive TV, etc.

13. That in reply to the contents of the Para 1 to 6 under the

heading Before Delhi High Court of the Parawise
 17

submissions it is submitted that the Honble Delhi High

Court vide judgment dated had held that since the NIA
i.e., the tender document has only reference to the
Company and its director and no explicit reference to the
shareholder of the company therefore the rejection of the
security clearance cannot be based on some allegation
against any shareholder of the company. The High Court
also held that unless a shareholder holds more than 51%
shares, pending criminal cases against them will have no
bearing on the security status of the company. It is most
respectfully submitted that MHA in this present matter
without considering the importance of the matter when
the said matter again went to the Honble High Court,
invented a new term as deemed security clearance to the
said company wherein the MHA had himself rejected the
security clearance. It is submitted that there was no need
by the MHA to use the term deemed before the Delhi
High Court wherein they had itself rejected the security
clearance, rather they could have very well submitted
before the Honble Court about their policy and also the
revised guidelines of December, 2015 on the security
clearance.

14. That in reply to the contents of the Para 1 to 5 under the

heading Before Bombay High Court of the Parawise
submissions it is submitted that in the matter before the
Honble Bombay High Court the court had clearly held
that security clearance to a company cannot only be
denied on the grounds of National Security but once
given can be withheld or denied at any time if the
concern security agencies report adversely. It is
submitted that the judgment by the Honble Bombay
High Court had clearly held that the national security is
of paramount importance and even the principles of
Natural Justice will not apply to it.
 18

15. That in reply to the contents of the Para 6 to 11 of the

Parawise submissions it is respectfully submitted that
several incidents of the non-uniformity in the policy of
the government has already been stated by the Petitioner
in the above paras and the delegation of its duty by the
MHA to the Administrative Ministry has posed a serious
threat to the security of the country. It is submitted that
Petitioner seeks liberty from this Honble Court to refer
to the contents of the Para 6 to 11 of the Writ Petition
also since the Respondent has chosen selectively to rely
to the same.

16. That in reply to the contents of the Para 12 of the

Parawise submissions the Petitioner relies on the Para 11
of the present rejoinder and also further submits that the
use of the word deemed by the MHA before the
Honble Delhi High Court can very well be an escape
route to the individual/companies having tainted
backgrounds. It is submitted that there was no need by
the MHA to use the term deemed before the Delhi High
Court wherein they had itself rejected the security
clearance, rather they could have very well submitted
before the Honble Court about their policy and also the
revised guidelines of December, 2015 on the security
clearance. It is submitted that this itself shows that the
government has been taking stand as per their
convenience and not strictly by policy.

17. That in reply to the contents of the Para 13 and 14 of the

Parawise submissions it is submitted that Petitioner is not
impugning the findings of the order of the Honble Delhi
High Court but is only submitting that the national
security of the country should never be compromised and
the government should take stand as per their policy and
without any ambiguity. It is submitted that due to the
paradoxical & mercurial stands of the government on the
aspect of security clearance before different High Courts
 19

and in different matters a complete confusion has been

created like in the above-mentioned matter namely
Mahuaa TV Pvt Ltd, Positive TV Pvt Ltd and STV Pvt
Ltd, the Honble Courts have held that merely pendency
of criminal cases cannot be a ground to reject the security
clearance which is totally contrary to the guidelines and
policy of the government thereby creating a backdoor
entry to different individual/companies and hence
compromise the National Security.

18. That in reply to the contents of the Para 15 of the

Parawise submissions it is submitted that the Petitioner is
not on some factual details of the case but on the general
aspect that the Honble Bombay High Court has
reiterated the importance of the National Security and
had also held that the opinion of the expert ministry i.e.,
MHA should be considered as they have the expertise
and mechanism to deal with the same.

19. That in reply to the contents of the Para 16 of the

Parawise submissions the Petitioner rely on contents of
the Para 16 of the Writ Petition.

20. That in reply to the contents of the Para 17 and 18 of the

Parawise submissions it is submitted that as mentioned
above herein and also in the Writ Petition, any ambiguity
by the government on the aspect of the grant of security
clearance is a potential threat to the National Security and
can be used by anti-national elements to bypass the
mandatory security clearance. It is submitted that after
this delegation of the power by the MHA to the
Administrative Ministry by Revised Guidelines in
December, 2015 the government has in fact created
confusion in the policy and due to it the different High
Courts are coming to different conclusions which are
contrary to the policy/guidelines of the government and
also posing a threat to National Security. It is also
 20

submitted that the guidelines of June, 2015 and the

Revised Guidelines of December, 2015 were never
mentioned by the government in any manner and have
followed the pick and choose policy due to which
different High Courts have come to divergent
conclusions on the various aspects of the security
clearance.

21. That in reply to the contents of the Para 19 to 20.4 of the

Parawise submissions merits no rejoinder by the
Petitioner.

22. That in reply to the contents of the Para 20.5 of the

Parawise submissions it is submitted that the MHA
should have disclosed before the Honble Court about
their Guidelines and Revised Guidelines which was not
done for the reasons best known to them and rather
granted them deemed security clearance and violated the
security policy.

23. That in reply to the contents of the Para 20.6 of the

Parawise submissions it is submitted that the issue raised
before this Honble Court by the Petitioner is concerning
the larger question of National Security only and the
Honble Bombay High Court has also held that the
importance of National Security should not be
compromised by anyone and even the principle of
Natural Justice should not be an exception to it.

24. That in reply to the contents of the Para 20.7 of the

Parawise submissions merit no rejoinder by the
Petitioner.

25. That in reply to the contents of the Para 21 of the

Parawise submissions it is submitted that the present
petition does raise important question of law which are to
be decided by this Honble Court because of the
paramount importance of the National Security of the
country.
 21

26. That in reply to the contents of the Para 22 of the

Parawise submissions it is submitted that the Petitioner
rely on contents of the Para 22 of the Writ Petition
mentioned as Grounds.

27. That in reply to the contents of the Para 23 to 25 of the

Parawise submissions merits no rejoinder by the
Petitioner.

28. That in reply to the contents of the Para 26 of the

Parawise submissions the Petitioner reiterate the contents
of the Writ Petition and humbly submits that the issue
raised in the present petition before this Honble Court
directly impacts the National Security and due to the
ambiguity and confusion, as created by the government
as mentioned above in different cases which has created a
potential threat on the security of the country.

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court

may be pleased to allow the Petition and the prayers made
therein.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:-

Verified at New Delhi on this .. day of , 2017

that the contents of my aforesaid rejoinder affidavit are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing
material has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT