The Supreme Court of India was informed that the Central Government has withdrawn its blocking order against the '4PM News' YouTube channel. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the channel's editor Sanjay Sharma, conveyed this information to a bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih. Sibal clarified that the channel has been unblocked.
Read Also:- Why NEET Must Go? Tamil Nadu's Fight for Educational Justice
However, despite the withdrawal of the blocking order, the petition challenging the blocking rules under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, remains active. Last week, the Supreme Court had issued a notice to the Central Government and YouTube regarding Sharma's petition against the blocking order.
"May be tagged with the pending matter challenging IT Blocking Rules. Interim relief has become infructuous," Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted.
Justice Gavai, while responding, remarked, "So for academic purpose it survives," indicating that the case would continue for examining the legal aspects of the blocking rules.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Petition Alleges Forcible Deportation of 43 Rohingyas by Indian Government
Background of the Case
Sanjay Sharma, Editor-in-Chief of '4PM News', filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the blocking of his YouTube channel. He argued that the blocking was "arbitrary and unconstitutional," alleging that it was executed without prior notice or hearing. Sharma claimed the action violated his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
The petition also sought the following:
- A directive for the Union Government to produce the blocking order with reasons and records, if any, sent to YouTube for blocking '4PM News'.
- Quashing of the blocking order once it is produced.
- Amendment or reading down of Rule 16 of the 2009 Rules, ensuring that the word 'shall' is treated as mandatory.
- Clarification of Rule 8 of the 2009 Rules, interpreting the term "or" as "and", ensuring that notice for blocking is issued to both the intermediary (YouTube) and the content creator.
- Striking down or reading down of Rule 9 of the 2009 Rules, making it compulsory for the issuing authority to provide notice, a hearing opportunity, and a copy of the interim order to the content creator before any final order.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Abolishes Point-Based System for Senior Advocate Designations, Directs High Courts to
On May 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued notices to the Union Government, the Ministry of Home Affairs, and YouTube, seeking their response to Sharma's petition. The matter continues to be heard by the Court.
Case Title: SANJAY SHARMA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 465/2025
