Justice Chawla made the remarks on Wednesday while hearing a petition by Bahl and his companies which had challenged the Information and Broadcasting Ministry's order rejecting the name change from "Y TV" to "Bloomberg Quint", and also suspension of permission for "Y TV" and "Malai Murasu" for a period of 30 days.
The petition also requested the court to direct I&B Ministry for early grant of permission to uplink "BQ Live" and "BQ Live HD".
Justice Chawla told the lawyers for Quintillion: "Because of all the 'khichdi' you made... whether they consider the application or not and a security clearance may be required."
After the hearing, Justice Chawla issued directions that name change and suspension of channels has to be appealed in TDSAT and directed the I&B Ministry to review the new channel applications before disposing off the matter.
The lawyer for the I&B Ministry argued that allowing the prayer in the high court would have grave policy implications.
Quintillion Business Media was represented by senior advocate A.S. Chandhiok while the Union of India was represented by Vikram Jeet Banerjee, ASG, and Ripudaman Bhardwaj.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday heard a petition made by Raghav Bahl, Quintillion Business Media Private Limited and Horizon Satellite Service Private Limited (companies which are owned by Bahl).
Bahl had acquired Horizon Satellite Service Private Limited in January 2017 which owned the channel permissions for "Y TV" and "Malai Murasu".
Bahl had applied for name change of Y TV to Bloomberg Quint, which was rejected by the I&B Ministry because the acquisition was against the broadcast policy.
Moving against this decision of the ministry, Bahl had approached TDSAT in April 2019. TDSAT had directed the I&B Ministry to take a decision on the application made by Bahl for name change, which was again rejected by the ministry in December 2019.
This time the I&B Ministry not only rejected the name change but also suspended the channels "Y TV" and "Malai Marasu" for 30 days for the transfer being down against broadcast policy.
Thereafter, Bahl withdrew the case it filed in TDSAT because he had filed another one in Delhi High Court and the matter was disposed off on Wednesday.
A questionnaire sent to Bahl and his lawyer from went unanswered.
( With inputs from IANS )