Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Reply on Plea Against Blocking of YouTube Channel ‘4PM’
The petition, filed by Sanjay Sharma—Editor of the digital news platform—questions the legality and constitutionality of the blocking action.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to the Centre and other parties over a petition challenging the blocking of the YouTube news channel ‘4PM’, which has over 73 lakh subscribers. The petition, filed by Sanjay Sharma—Editor of the digital news platform—questions the legality and constitutionality of the blocking action.
Table of Contents
Blocking Cited ‘National Security’ Without Notice, Claims Petition
The plea alleges that the channel was blocked following an undisclosed direction from the Centre, citing vague reasons such as “national security” and “public order.” Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, told the bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan that no notice or explanation was given before the channel was taken down.
“The whole channel is blocked and no reason. The only information I have is from the intermediary,” Sibal said, calling the action “ex-facie unconstitutional.”
Plea Terms Action a Threat to Press Freedom
Filed through advocate Talha Abdul Rahman, the petition calls the blocking a “chilling assault on journalistic independence” and a violation of the public’s right to access information. It says the act of removing content without prior notice or hearing is in direct violation of constitutional and statutory safeguards.
The petition stresses that:
“‘National security’ and ‘public order’ are not talismanic invocations to insulate executive action from scrutiny.”
Challenges to IT Blocking Rules Also Raised
The plea seeks not only the quashing of the blocking order but also challenges the validity of specific provisions in the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009:
- Rule 16, which mandates confidentiality regarding all blocking actions,
- Rules 8 and 9, which relate to procedure and opportunity for hearing.
The petitioner requests the court to strike down or read down Rule 9 to ensure that content creators are provided with a notice, hearing, and a copy of the interim order before any final blocking action is taken.
Fundamental Rights Allegedly Violated
The petition argues that the Blocking Rules, 2009 infringe upon several fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution:
- Freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a),
- Right to equality under Article 14,
- Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
The petition also emphasizes the responsibility of authorities to ensure that such drastic actions are not carried out arbitrarily or in a manner that suppresses dissent and press freedom.
Next Hearing Scheduled for Next Week
The Supreme Court, after issuing notices, scheduled the matter for further hearing next week. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for digital journalism and freedom of expression in India.
