The Central Government has withdrawn its recent directive blocking the YouTube channel of 4PM News, the Supreme Court was informed on Tuesday. The move came during a hearing before a Bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AS Masih, which is dealing with a petition filed by the channel challenging the legality of the blocking action.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing 4PM News, informed the Court that the blocking order—originally issued on grounds of “national security” and “public order”—has now been revoked. However, Sibal urged the Court to keep the matter alive, noting that the broader constitutional challenge to certain provisions of the Information Technology (IT) Rules, 2009, remains unresolved. The Court agreed to tag the plea with a related matter already pending before it.
The petition, filed by 4PM News Editor Sanjay Sharma, contended that the channel was blocked without any prior notice or hearing, based on an undisclosed order from the Centre. The plea challenged the move as a violation of constitutional safeguards under Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees the right to free speech and expression.
The plea argued that under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, any direction to block online content must be accompanied by a reasoned order and a reasonable opportunity for the affected party to be heard. It further asserted that invoking “national security” or “public order” without specific disclosure of the allegedly offending content undermines the right to a fair hearing and accountability in governance.
“It is settled law that vague and blanket references to national security cannot be used as a shield against judicial scrutiny. Such executive actions must meet the tests of reasonableness and proportionality,” the plea submitted.
In addition to seeking the quashing of the blocking order—which has now been withdrawn—the petition also challenges Rules 8, 9, and 16 of the IT (Blocking Rules), 2009, contending that they allow for arbitrary and opaque censorship without any prior notice, making them unconstitutional.
The petition was filed through Advocate Talha Abdul Rahman and was drawn by Advocates Mohammad Haider Rizvi and Shaz Khan.
The Supreme Court’s decision to continue hearing the case signals a broader inquiry into the constitutionality of India’s digital censorship framework and its implications for press freedom and free speech online.
