Today, On 5th May, The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Centre on a plea filed by 4PM News, challenging the blocking of its YouTube channel by the government citing national security grounds.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has requested a response from the Central government regarding a petition challenging the blocking of the YouTube channel “4PM News” based on national security concerns.
A Bench consisting of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan instructed the Central government to submit its reply within two weeks.
The petition, filed by 4PM News Editor Sanjay Sharma, argues that the channel was blocked following a confidential directive from the government, citing “national security” and “public order” concerns. Sharma asserts that he never received a formal blocking order.
Invoking Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the plea contends that a reasoned order and an opportunity to be heard are mandatory before blocking any online content.
The plea states,
“It is settled law that the Constitution does not permit blanket removal of content without an opportunity to be heard. ‘National security’ and ‘public order’ are constitutionally permissible grounds under Article 19(2), but they are subject to tests of reasonableness and proportionality,”
It further argues that vague references to these grounds without disclosure of the alleged offending content undermine the petitioner’s right to free speech and fair hearing.
Describing the Centre’s action as a “chilling assault on journalistic independence,” Sharma seeks to overturn the blocking order. The plea also challenges Rules 8, 9, and 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, arguing that they permit content to be blocked without prior notice or hearing, rendering them unconstitutional.
The petition was filed through Advocate Talha Abdul Rahman and drafted by Advocates Mohammad Haider Rizvi and Shaz Khan.
Earlier, Sanjay Sharma is the editor-in-chief of the popular Hindi news channel ‘4PM’. In his petition, he told the Supreme Court that his channel was suddenly blocked under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, also known as the IT Blocking Rules. He said this was done without giving him a chance to respond or explain his side.
He asserted YouTube’s decision to block his channel, is “arbitrary and unconstitutional.”
The government, on the other hand, told the court that the channel was blocked because of serious concerns related to national security and public order.
But Sanjay Sharma argued that the government is misusing the law to silence media voices. He said that the IT Blocking Rules are being used in an arbitrary way, and they are not giving fair chances to people before taking such serious action like blocking a news channel.
His petition said that these rules are against the right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India gives every citizen the fundamental right to express their opinions freely through speech, writing, printing, pictures, or any other mode. This includes the freedom of the press and media, allowing journalists and citizens to publish news, share views, and report without fear of censorship or unjust restrictions.
However, this right is not absolute. Under Article 19(2), the government can impose “reasonable restrictions” on this freedom in the interest of:
- the sovereignty and integrity of India,
- the security of the State,
- friendly relations with foreign States,
- public order,
- decency or morality,
- contempt of court,
- defamation, or
- incitement to an offence.
In Sanjay Sharma’s case, he is claiming that his right under Article 19(1)(a) has been violated by the sudden and complete blocking of his YouTube channel ‘4PM’ without prior notice or hearing, while the government is defending the action under the “public order” and “security of the State” grounds under Article 19(2).
Case Title: SANJAY SHARMA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 465/2025