Journalist Sanjay Sharma, Editor-in-Chief of the YouTube news channel 4PM, has moved the Supreme Court against the blocking of his digital platform. He claims the action was taken on vague grounds of "national security" and "public order" without prior notice, a hearing, or any clear explanation.
“The blocking of my channel without transparency is a direct attack on my freedom of speech and expression,” said Sharma in his plea.
Read Also:- Gang Rape Conviction | One Accused's Act Can Implicate All if Common Intention Exists: Supreme Court
The petition urges immediate restoration of the '4PM' channel and questions the legality of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 — known as the IT Blocking Rules. The channel was reportedly blocked under an undisclosed government order, with YouTube acting as the intermediary.
The plea argues that the blocking violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, as no copy of the blocking order or the reasons for the ban were shared with Sharma.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on Death Row Convict’s Plea for Relief Under 'Manoj' Judgment
“No blocking order or underlying complaint has been furnished to the petitioner, violating both statutory and constitutional safeguards,” the petition states.
Sharma has asked the court to:
- Direct the Union government to produce the blocking order, if any.
- Quash the order after reviewing its legality.
- Strike down or read down Rules 8, 9, and 16 of the 2009 IT Rules to ensure due process, notice, and hearing are provided to content creators before content is blocked.
- Align the Rules with Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, which mandates that any blocking order must be in writing and with recorded reasons.
Read Also:- Mandatory Prescription of Generic Drugs Can Curb Pharma Bribery, Says Supreme Court
The plea raises multiple constitutional concerns, stating that the current rules allow blocking without notice and offer no mechanism for redress. Sharma stresses that blocking entire platforms or channels instead of specific posts is disproportionate and excessive.
“Blanket claims of national security should not be misused to silence journalists or shut down independent news outlets,” the petition highlights.
The petition cites PUCL v. Union of India, which reaffirmed that the freedom to disseminate information is an essential part of freedom of speech. It also references Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court emphasized transparency and the right to be informed of reasons for blocking online content.
Read Also:- Allahabad High Court Disposes PIL Seeking SIT Probe Into Robert Vadra’s Remarks on Pahalgam Terror Attack
The Editors Guild of India, in a statement released on May 1, criticized the lack of transparency in the government’s action against 4PM. The Guild called this a “troubling pattern” of arbitrary censorship and said that national security was being used as a pretext to silence independent voices.
“This opaque use of executive power is in line with a troubling pattern of increasing curbs on free speech through non-transparent processes,” the Guild stated.
The Guild also pointed to earlier examples like the blocking of Vikatan, a Tamil news platform, and The Kashmir Wallah, saying such takedowns undermine press freedom.
The petition has been filed through Advocates Syed Mohammad Haider Rizvi, Talha Abdul Rahman, and M Shaz Khan. Sharma seeks judicial intervention to safeguard free speech and ensure transparent mechanisms for any future blocking of digital content.
