Supreme Court Issues Notice To Centre On Plea Challenging Blocking Of YouTube Channel '4PM News'

The Supreme Court on Monday (May 5) issued notice to the Union Government on a  plea filed by journalist Sanjay Sharma against the blocking of his YouTube channel '4PM News' on purported grounds of 'national security' and 'public order'.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan posted the matter next week.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the petitioner, said that no notice was issued to the petitioner prior to the blocking of the channel. Initially, the bench indicated that it will tag the petition with a similar petition which challenges the blocking rules. However, Sibal pressed the need for an interim order against the blocking of the channel. He said that the other petition only challenged the rules, whereas in the present case, the petitioner was directly affected due to the blocking of his channel.  "I want the blocking order to be removed. The whole channel is blocked, and for no reason!" he said.

Sibal said that, except the notice from the intermediary (YouTube) informing about the government's order to block the channel, the petitioner was not served with any prior notice. "This is ex-facie unconstitutional. I don't even have the blocking order. I don't know what is against me," he urged. When Sibal pressed for an interim order, the bench conveyed that the Union should be heard before passing an interim order. "We will have to hear the other side," Justice Gavai said.

The bench initially issued notice returnable in two weeks. However, after Sibal requested an urgent hearing, it agreed to list the case next week. Notice has been ordered to the Union Government, the Ministry of Home Affairs and YouTube.

Notably, the plea also challenges the vires of Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.

Briefly put, Sharma, Editor-in-Chief of '4PM News' channel, filed the present petition terming the blocking action "arbitrary and unconstitutional". He claims that the blocking by YouTube (an intermediary) was without any prior notice or hearing and pursuant to an "undisclosed" order of the Union government under IT Blocking Rules. As such, there was violation of his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Among other things, he seeks urgent restoration of access to his platform and challenges the vires of IT Blocking Rules, 2009.

"No blocking order or underlying complaint has been furnished to the petitioner, violating both statutory and constitutional safeguards", the plea urges.

Through the petition, Sharma seeks that the Union produce the blocking order with reasons and records, if any, issued to YouTube for blocking the “4PM News” channel. He further prays for quashing of the blocking order passed by the Union once the same is produced.

The plea further demands that Rule 16 of the 2009 Rules be quashed and/or the word 'shall' be read as a compulsory requirement. It is also prayed that Rule 8 of the 2009 Rules be read down to ensure a conjunctive reading of the term “or” as “and” as well as that the notice for blocking be issued to the intermediary as well as the person (originator or creator of the content).

In addition, Sharma seeks striking down and/or reading down of Rule 9 of the 2009 Rules to mandate the issuance of a notice, opportunity of hearing, and communication of a copy of the interim order to the person (originator or creator of the content) prior to the passing of a final order.

Grounds raised

The grounds raised in support of the prayers include inter-alia:

- The 2009 Rules including Rules 8, 9, and 16 infringe upon fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, particularly the rights to freedom of speech and expression, right to equality, and the right to life and personal liberty. The rules permit blocking of content without a meaningful opportunity for individuals to challenge such actions, thereby affecting their right to express themselves freely;

- Freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to each citizen under Article 19(1)(a) embraces within its scope the freedom to disseminate information, and interchange of ideas, as held in PUCL v. Union of India;

- Rule 16 mandates confidentiality regarding the reasons for content blocking; as such, it infringes upon the right to information, a component of the right to freedom of speech and expression as held by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India;

- Rule 16 absolutely withholds the free flow of information from the State to the citizens and casts an unjust interference on grounds of mere mentioning of 'security of state', in absence of publication of reasons [Ref: Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India];

- Rule 8 mandates notice to the intermediary but does not ensure that the person whose content is being blocked (i.e., the originator of the content) is directly informed. This violates the right to due process guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution;

- Rule 9 does not provide a mandatory requirement of hearing the citizen aggrieved, prior or post to passing a final order blocking the content from the internet subsequent to an interim order passed. It allows indefinite blocking without specifying a clear process for resolution or redress. In emergency situations, where content is blocked without notice, the aggrieved party has no mechanism to challenge the blocking or even know when or how it will be lifted;

- The purported reasoning of national security cannot be invoked as a blanket excuse to shut out independent journalistic voices. Restrictions must be justified and proportionate;

- The principle of proportionality requires that only the offending post is dealt with in accordance with law after engaging with the publisher of the post and not the whole channel.

Appearance: Advocates Syed Mohammad Haider Rizvi, Talha Abdul Rahman and M Shaz Khan

Case Title: SANJAY SHARMA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 465/2025