Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court was today informed that the Central Government has withdrawn the blocking order passed against '4PM News' YouTube Channel.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the channel's editor Sanjay Sharma, informed the bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih that the channel has been unblocked now.

However, the petition has been kept alive to consider the challenge against the blocking rules. Last week, the bench had issued notice to the Centre and YouTube on Sharma's petition challenging the blocking order.

"May be tagged with the pending matter challenging IT Blocking Rules. Interim relief has become infructuous," Sibal requested when Justice Gavai asked if anything survived in the matter with the withdrawal of the blocking order. "So for academic purpose it survives," Justice Gavai commented.

On the last date, the bench was inclined to tag Sharma's petition with a similar petition challenging the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. However, when Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (appearing for Sharma) pressed for an interim order against the blocking of the channel, the matter was listed today.

Background

Sharma, Editor-in-Chief of '4PM News' channel, filed the present petition terming the blocking action "arbitrary and unconstitutional".

He claims that the blocking by YouTube (an intermediary) was without any prior notice or hearing and pursuant to an "undisclosed" order of the Union government under IT Blocking Rules. As such, there was violation of his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Among other things, he seeks urgent restoration of access to his platform and challenges the vires of IT Blocking Rules, 2009.

Through the petition, Sharma seeks that the Union produce the blocking order with reasons and records, if any, issued to YouTube for blocking the “4PM News” channel. He further prays for quashing of the blocking order passed by the Union once the same is produced.

The plea further demands that Rule 16 of the 2009 Rules be quashed and/or the word 'shall' be read as a compulsory requirement. It is also prayed that Rule 8 of the 2009 Rules be read down to ensure a conjunctive reading of the term “or” as “and” as well as that the notice for blocking be issued to the intermediary as well as the person (originator or creator of the content).

In addition, Sharma seeks striking down and/or reading down of Rule 9 of the 2009 Rules to mandate the issuance of a notice, opportunity of hearing, and communication of a copy of the interim order to the person (originator or creator of the content) prior to the passing of a final order.

Notice was issued on the petition to the Union government, the Ministry of Home Affairs and YouTube on May 5.

Case Title: SANJAY SHARMA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 465/2025