On May 5, the Supreme Court of India issued a notice to the Union Government in response to a petition filed by journalist Sanjay Sharma. Sharma, the Editor-in-Chief of the YouTube channel 4PM News, has challenged the sudden blocking of his channel by the government, citing concerns over national security and public order.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan acknowledged the urgency of the matter and has scheduled a hearing for next week. The plea also challenges the validity of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Emphasizes the Need for Prior Notice Before Social Media Takedown
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Sharma, strongly argued that the blocking of the entire channel was done without prior notice or explanation.
"This is ex-facie unconstitutional. I don't even have the blocking order. I don't know what is against me," Sibal told the court.
He further explained that the only communication Sharma received was from YouTube, acting as the intermediary, informing him that the channel was blocked following a government order. No direct notice or reasoning was provided to Sharma.
Read Also:- Petition Filed in Supreme Court Challenging YouTube Channel '4PM' Block and Validity of IT Blocking Rules
"I want the blocking order to be removed. The whole channel is blocked, and for no reason!" Sibal urged.
Although the court initially planned to tag this case with another ongoing matter concerning the blocking rules, Sibal requested a separate urgent hearing. Responding to the concern, the bench agreed to hear the matter next week and issued notice to the Union Government, the Ministry of Home Affairs, and YouTube.
The petition describes the blocking as "arbitrary and unconstitutional", asserting that it violates Sharma’s fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It also points out that Sharma has not received the official blocking order or any related documentation.
"No blocking order or underlying complaint has been furnished to the petitioner, violating both statutory and constitutional safeguards", the plea states.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Seniority in Direct Recruitment Must Be Based on Exam Marks, Not Past Service
Sharma’s petition demands that the Union Government disclose the blocking order and supporting documents issued to YouTube. He also seeks the removal of the blocking order and the restoration of access to his YouTube channel.
In addition to questioning the blocking action, the petition also challenges specific provisions of the 2009 IT Rules:
- Rule 16, which enforces confidentiality over the blocking order, is argued to limit the citizen’s right to information and expression.
- Rule 8, which mandates notice only to the intermediary and not the content creator, is said to violate due process.
- Rule 9, which lacks a clear mandate for a hearing before or after content blocking, allows indefinite blocking without redress.
The petition references landmark rulings such as PUCL v. Union of India, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, and Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India to reinforce its argument that the blocking rules must align with constitutional protections.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Refund of Advance Payment Under Specific Relief Act Requires Express Prayer in Plaint
"Freedom of speech includes the right to disseminate and receive information. Blocking entire platforms without prior notice or hearing violates this fundamental right," the plea stresses.
Sharma argues that citing 'national security' cannot become a blanket excuse to suppress journalistic voices. The government must ensure that any restriction is specific, justified, and proportionate. According to the plea, only the offending content, if any, should be taken down—not the entire platform.
Appearance: Advocates Syed Mohammad Haider Rizvi, Talha Abdul Rahman and M Shaz Khan
Case Title: SANJAY SHARMA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 465/2025
