Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Reply on Plea Challenging Blocking of YouTube Channel ‘4 PM’

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Central government and YouTube on a petition challenging the recent blocking of the digital news channel ‘4 PM’, which has a reported subscriber base of over seven million.

A bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan asked the Centre and YouTube to respond within two weeks, after which the matter will be taken up for further hearing. The order came in response to a plea filed by journalist Sanjay Sharma, who runs the YouTube channel and has sought immediate restoration of its operations.

“We have to hear the other side before passing any order,” Justice Gavai remarked during the hearing, refusing to grant interim relief without first seeking the Centre’s justification for the action. The court permitted Sharma to serve the petition to both the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Sharma, described the blocking order as “ex-facie unconstitutional,” arguing that the petitioner had not been provided a copy of the order or informed of the grounds for the action. “The only information I have is from the intermediary,” Sibal said, referring to YouTube’s communication dated April 29, which informed Sharma of the channel’s takedown.

The petition, filed through advocate Talha Abdul Rahman, alleges that the blocking order was arbitrary, opaque, and violative of constitutional protections under Articles 19(1)(a) and 14. It also challenges Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, which mandates confidentiality over such blocking orders and communications.

READ ALSO  Supreme Court Emphasizes Prosecution's Duty to Prove Cases Beyond Doubt

According to the plea, the channel was blocked allegedly on grounds of “national security”, though no specific details or supporting material were provided. The petitioner contends that his digital platform had merely raised “uncomfortable questions” regarding accountability and lapses in the aftermath of the recent Pahalgam terror attack.

The court will now hear the matter after two weeks, pending replies from the concerned ministries and YouTube.

READ ALSO  SC refuses to divulge information regarding Retired SC Judge Arun Mishra’s overstay in his official accommodation
Ad 20- WhatsApp Banner

Law Trend
Law Trendhttps://lawtrend.in/
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles