Editor Sanjay Sharma challenges government action, calls it an assault on press freedom
New Delhi, May 10 — The Supreme Court of India is set to hear a crucial plea on May 13, challenging the blocking of the YouTube news channel ‘4PM’, which boasts over 73 lakh subscribers. The petition has been filed by Sanjay Sharma, editor of the digital news platform, alleging that the move constitutes a direct attack on journalistic freedom and public access to information.The matter will be heard by a bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih, as listed in the apex court's cause list for the day.
Plea Alleges Undisclosed Government Order Behind Block
Sharma’s plea contends that the channel was blocked by the intermediary — believed to be YouTube — following an undisclosed directive from the Centre. The direction allegedly cited broad and undefined concerns related to "national security" and "public order".Describing the act as a “chilling assault on journalistic independence,” the petition emphasizes that neither a formal blocking order nor the basis for such action was ever shared with Sharma. It claims the blocking violates constitutional protections and the statutory requirements under Indian law.
“No Fair Opportunity Given”: Petition Highlights Legal Gaps
Filed through advocate Talha Abdul Rahman, the petition asserts that Sharma was not provided a fair opportunity to present his case. The plea insists that the Constitution does not support blanket content removal without due process, arguing that vague national security concerns should not be used as blanket shields for executive action.“The action strikes at the core of democratic accountability ensured by a free press,” the petition states.
Challenge to Rules Underlying Blocking Mechanism
In addition to quashing the order blocking ‘4PM’, the petition also challenges Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, which enforces confidentiality around all such actions. The plea argues that such secrecy prevents affected parties from seeking timely and fair redress.It also seeks to amend Rule 9 of the same Blocking Rules to mandate that any blocking action must include a prior notice, a chance to be heard, and communication of any interim order to the originator or creator of the content.
As the case heads to the Supreme Court, it is likely to ignite a wider debate over press freedom, digital censorship, and transparency in the exercise of executive powers.
