The Supreme Court of India was informed on Tuesday that the Union Government had withdrawn its directive to block the YouTube-based news channel 4PM News Network.
The update came during a hearing on a writ petition filed by journalist Sanjay Sharma, who had challenged the block order issued on grounds of ‘national security’ and ‘public order’.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih took note of the development after senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Sharma, submitted that the authorities had revoked the blocking directive.
Consequently, the request for interim relief had become redundant.
Court Tags Plea With Similar Pending Cases
Although the block order no longer remains in effect, Sibal continued to press the substantive part of the petition, which challenges the constitutional validity of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
Taking note of this, the bench ordered that Sharma’s plea be tagged with a batch of similar petitions currently pending before the court.
Just last week, the same bench had issued a notice on a related matter and sought responses from the Union Government, the Ministry of Home Affairs, and YouTube.
Petitioner Alleges Violation Of Fundamental Rights
In his writ petition, Sharma alleged that the government’s failure to share the blocking order or the underlying complaint violated statutory and constitutional protections.
Filed through advocate Talha Abdul Rahman, the petition contended that Rules 8, 9, and 16 of the 2009 Blocking Rules infringe upon Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Also Read: CJI Sanjiv Khanna Retires Today; Justice Bhushan Gavai To Succeed
“These rules enable blocking without notice or a hearing, thus undermining natural justice and enabling a regime of censorship devoid of transparency,” the petition argued.
‘National Security’ Cannot Justify Arbitrary Censorship, Plea States
The petitioner asserted that vague references to ‘national security’ and ‘public order’ cannot serve as catch-all justifications for censorship.
While these are valid grounds under Article 19(2), he maintained that any such action must meet the standards of reasonableness and proportionality.
Sharma added that the absence of specific information about the offending content made it impossible to challenge the allegations, thus stripping him of his fundamental right to free expression and a fair hearing.
Editors Guild Denounces ‘Opaque’ Takedown Order
Reacting to the controversy, the Editors Guild of India issued a strongly worded statement condemning the Union Government’s initial move to block the channel.
Describing it as an ‘opaque use of executive power’, the Guild stressed the lack of prior notice or opportunity for response.
“Arbitrary takedown orders severely undermine the fundamental right to freedom of speech,” the statement read.
The Guild reiterated its call for a transparent, accountable content moderation process, especially when it affects journalistic content. It warned against using national security as a pretext to stifle independent reporting or critical voices.
To read more such news, download Bharat Express news apps
