New Delhi, June 20: The Ministry for Home Affairs is likely to stick to its stand on the Sun TV network security clearance issue.
The MHA had denied security clearance to the Sun TV Network on the ground that there were various cases pending, but the Attorney General had mere filing of cases was not a ground to deny clearance.
Despite this opinion given by Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi,
the Home Ministry says that it would stick to its stand as this
decision was taken after considerable deliberations.
Home Ministry will not give security clearance to Sun TV:
The Home Ministry says that there have been acts on part of the Sun TV group which are under investigations. There are charges of money laundering which are serious in nature and affect the economic security of the nation.
In such an event, it is not right to grant a security clearance to the group, an official in the Home Ministry informed OneIndia.
The decision has been taken after due consideration and at this moment we do not deem it right to give a security clearance the official also pointed out.
Ball in the court of the I&B ministry:
While the decision on whether to grant a security clearance to the Sun TV network entirely lies with the Home Ministry, a final call on the issue will be taken by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry.
It is the I&B ministry which gives a broadcasting licence and hence they will be the ones who will take a final call on the issue.
The Home Ministry before taking a decision had deliberated the
same with the Attorney General as well. There is likely to be
another round of discussions with the I&B ministry before
the issue is finally closed.
The issue on hand:
The MHA had denied security clearance to the Sun TV network citing three cases. It had said that the owners of the channel, Maran brothers had cases pertaining to the 2G scam, the Aircel-Maxis deal and also the 300 line exchange case.
The Attorney General however had in his opinion said that mere filing of criminal charges in economic offences, in which trial courts were yet to frame charges against the accused, could not be a ground to infer that they had posed threat to national security because of the alleged offences.