Has the Ban on 4PM YouTube Channel Been Lifted?

New Delhi, May 13 (NationPress) The Supreme Court was informed on Tuesday that the Union government has rescinded its order to block the YouTube channel 4PM News Network.

A panel of Justices B. R. Gavai and A. G. Masih was considering a petition raised by journalist Sanjay Sharma contesting the Centre's order to restrict his news channel on YouTube, citing “national security” and “public order”.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioner, argued that since the blocking order has been revoked by the authorities, the request for interim relief has become unnecessary.

Nevertheless, Sibal emphasized the plea within the petition that questions the constitutional legitimacy of the Information Technology (IT) Blocking Rules, 2009.

In light of this submission, the Apex Court instructed that the current petition be associated with a pending set of cases addressing similar concerns. Just last week, the Justice Gavai-led panel issued a notice regarding the plea from the editor of the digital news platform, seeking responses from the Union government, including the Ministry of Home Affairs and YouTube.

When the request for interim relief was pressed, the Top Court indicated that it was not inclined to issue any stay order without hearing from the government. In his writ petition submitted to the Apex Court, journalist Sanjay Sharma contended that the non-disclosure of the blocking order or the underlying complaint infringed upon statutory and constitutional protections.

“Rules 8, 9, and 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, which allow for blocking without notice or hearing, violate Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution, as they dismiss the principles of natural justice and establish a shadowy regime of censorship lacking transparency or accountability,” stated the petition filed through Talha Abdul Rahman.

Furthermore, it asserted that the Constitution does not allow for the indiscriminate removal of content without providing an opportunity to be heard.

“National security and public order cannot be invoked as talismanic phrases to shield executive actions from scrutiny. They are recognized grounds under Article 19(2) of the Constitution but must meet the standards of reasonableness and proportionality,” the plea stated.

A vague reference to these justifications, without even identifying the disputed content, renders it impossible for the petitioner to contest or rectify the claim, thus infringing upon his fundamental rights to free speech and fair hearing, the petition added.

The Editors Guild of India recently expressed its “deep concern” regarding the Union government's decision to block the YouTube Channel 4PM News Network, labeling the action as an “opaque use of executive power, devoid of prior notice or opportunity for rebuttal”. “Arbitrary takedown orders jeopardize the fundamental right to freedom of speech.”

The Guild reiterated its call for a transparent and accountable mechanism for content removals, especially when it pertains to journalistic endeavors. National security should not serve as a pretext for silencing critical perspectives or independent reporting,” the statement concluded.