In a significant ruling balancing free speech and national security concerns, the Delhi High Court ordered restoration of the YouTube channel “4PM” after it was blocked by the government over allegedly objectionable content. The Court noted that while the channel had nearly 50,000 videos, only around 26 videos were alleged to violate the law. Observing that an entire platform cannot be indefinitely shut down without proper consideration, the Court directed temporary suspension of the disputed videos while restoring access to the channel.
The Petitioners approached the High Court challenging the blocking of their YouTube channel “4PM” by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) under Rule 16(2) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. They sought quashing of the blocking order and restoration of public access to the channel and all its content. According to the petition, before blocking, the channel had approximately 83 lakh subscribers and around 1.45 crore monthly views.
In March, 2026, the Petitioners received an email from YouTube informing them that MeitY had directed blocking of the “4PM” channel in India. Another email informed them that the action related to “national security or public order.” The petitioners also received around 27 separate emails stating that 27 videos uploaded on the channel had been blocked. Later the same day, the petitioners were informed that a meeting of the Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC) had been scheduled to consider blocking of the channel. Hearings were subsequently rescheduled and finally conducted on March 18, 2026, where the Petitioners were granted an opportunity of hearing and their written submissions were taken on record. However, the Petitioners contended that the final order passed by the IDC was never supplied to them.
Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal appearing for the Petitioners argued that neither the blocking order nor the reasons for blocking the channel had been communicated to the Petitioners. It was submitted that non-supply of the order deprived them of an effective opportunity to defend themselves before the concerned authority. The Petitioners therefore sought immediate restoration of the YouTube channel and its content.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma defended the blocking action and submitted that the IDC had examined the material uploaded on the channel and concluded that the content should not be allowed to remain available for public viewing. It was argued that the content was detrimental to India’s sovereignty, national security and public order. The Respondents also submitted that there were previous instances indicating breach of mandatory legal requirements by the Petitioners under various rules and regulations.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that although approximately 50,000 videos had been uploaded on the “4PM” channel, only a small fraction, namely 26 videos, were alleged to be objectionable/offending. Referring to earlier similar matters where channels/accounts were permitted to continue operating while disputed content remained suspended pending adjudication, the Court observed that “The Court finds that the petitioner had posted on its account approximately 50 thousand videos and a fraction of them i.e., 26 were found to be objectionable/offending.”
Balancing the equities between the petitioners’ right to operate the channel and the government’s concerns regarding objectionable material, the Court directed the petitioners to appear before the IDC and ordered YouTube to temporarily suspend the allegedly offending videos. The Court further directed that upon compliance, the “4PM” YouTube channel shall be restored. It was also directed that any recommendations made by the IDC to the Ministry be supplied to the Petitioners, while granting liberty to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to monitor future content and take action in accordance with law if any objectionable material is uploaded in future.
Case Title: Sanjay Sharma & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) 4613/2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
For the Petitioners: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate, Mr. S. M. Haider Rizvi, Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, Ms. Jahnavi Sindhu, Mr. Sudhanshu Tewari, Mr. Krishnesh Bapat, Mr. Faizan Ahmed and Mr. Shuktiz Sinha, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG, Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Mr. R. V. Prabhat, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Shubham Sharma, Mr. Yash Wardhan Sharma, Mr. Naman, Ms. Mamta Rani Jha, Mr. Rohan Ahuja, Ms. Shruttima Ehersa, Ms. Aiswarya Debardarshini, Mr. Ankit Tripathi and Ms. Jahanvi Agarwal, Advocates.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
