SC issues notice to Centre on journalist’s petition challenging ban on his YouTube channel

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Centre on a journalist’s petition challenging the blocking of his YouTube news channel ‘4PM’ on grounds of ‘national security’ and ‘public order’.

A Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan asked the Government and YouTube to respond to the petition filed by Sanjay Sharma, the Editor-in-Chief of ‘4PM’ YouTube channel after senior counsel Kapil Sibal pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that the channel was blocked without any prior notice.

“I want the blocking order to be removed. The whole channel is blocked, and for no reason…,” Sibal told the Bench. No prior notice was issued to the petitioner, except that from YouTube informing him of the Government’s order to block his channel, he said.

“This is ex-facie unconstitutional. I don’t even have the blocking order. I don’t know what is against me,” Sibal said, urging the Bench to pass an interim order.

However, noting that it needed to hear the Government before passing any interim order, the Bench posted the matter for further hearing next week.

Terming the ban as “arbitrary”, Sharma submitted that it violated his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. He contended that the blocking his channel by YouTube on purported grounds of ‘national security’ and ‘public order’ was without any prior notice or hearing following an “undisclosed” order issued by the Centre under IT Blocking Rules.

“The purported reasoning of national security cannot be invoked as a blanket excuse to shut out independent journalistic voices,” Sharma said, adding, restrictions must be justified and proportionate.

“The principle of proportionality requires that only the offending post is dealt with in accordance with law after engaging with the publisher of the post and not the whole channel,” he said, contending that the ban was inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s rulings in Shreya Singhal and other cases.

Sharma has also challenged the validity of the IT Blocking Rules, 2009 on the ground that they infringed upon fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression, right to equality and the right to life and personal liberty.

“The rules permit blocking of content without a meaningful opportunity for individuals to challenge such actions, thereby affecting their right to express themselves freely,” Sharma submitted.

He contended that the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution embraced within its scope the freedom to disseminate information, and interchange of ideas.

India