The Supreme Court plans to hear orders calling for revocation of YouTube channel “4 p.m.”. File | Image source: PTI
The Supreme Court was scheduled to hear a request to revoke the order to revoke the YouTube channel’s “4 p.m.” on May 13.
On May 5, the Supreme Court sought a response from the Centre, as well as a response from others on Sanjay Sharma, editor of the digital news platform “4 p.m.,” which has a subscriber base of 7.3 million.
Also Read | In India, over 8,000 X accounts are blocked; wires say will challenge site blocking
The request claims that the intermediary’s blockade was conducted by unpublished instructions allegedly issued by the intermediary center and based on “ambiguous” “national security” and “public order.”
According to the Supreme Court’s career list on May 13, the request is scheduled to be heard on the bench of Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih.
The request claims that the blockade is a “shocking attack on the independence of news” and a public right to receive information.
The petition was filed through advocate Talha Abdul Rahman, who said that the failure to provide the petitioner with a blocking order or a basic complaint violates statutory and constitutional safeguards.
The request also argued that it was a settlement law, that the Constitution did not allow the removal of content without a chance to hear it.
It said: “‘National Security’ and ‘public order’ are not amulets for segregating the execution of actions.”
The request said the action is not only a super drug of parental regulations, but also the core of the liberal media ensuring democratic accountability.
“Stopping is a shocking attack on the independence of news and a public right to obtain information,” it said.
The request seeks instructions from the Center to send to the intermediary for “reasons” and “records” (if any) to block the channels.
It also seeks Rule 16 for Information Technology (Procedures and safeguards used to prevent public information from obtaining information), the 2009 rule.
Article 16 of the Rule provides for the strict confidentiality of all requests, complaints and actions under the Rule.
The request also seeks strike and/or reading Article 9 of the 2009 Blocking Rules to require notice, opportunity to hear and copy of the temporary order with the initiator or creator of the content before the final order is delivered.
It said the petitioner’s YouTube channel was blocked and there was no fair opportunity to clarify or prove his case.
publishing – May 10, 2025 at 01:04 pm ist
