SC to hear plea against blocking 4PM YouTube channel on Tuesday
New Delhi: The Supreme Court is slated to hear on Tuesday a plea filed by journalist Sanjay Sharma challenging the directive to block the YouTube channel 4PM News Network on the grounds of "national security" and "public order".
As per the causelist published on the website of the apex court, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih will resume hearing the matter on May 13. On Monday, the Justice Gavai-led Bench issued a notice and sought responses from the Union government, including the Ministry of Home Affairs, and YouTube.
In the previous hearing, when a prayer for interim relief was pressed, the top court told senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioner, that it was not inclined to pass any interim order without hearing the other side.
In his writ petition filed before the apex court, the editor of the digital news platform said that non-furnishing of the blocking order or underlying complaint violated both statutory and constitutional safeguards. "Rules 8, 9, and 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, which permit blocking without notice or hearing, are violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution, as they oust the principles of natural justice and enable a shadow regime of censorship devoid of transparency or accountability," stated the petition filed through Talha Abdul Rahman.
Further, it said that the Constitution does not permit the blanket removal of content without an opportunity to be heard. "'National security' and 'public order' are not talismanic invocations to insulate executive action from scrutiny. They are constitutionally recognised grounds under Article 19(2), but are subject to the test of reasonableness and proportionality,' the plea said.
A vague reference to these grounds, without even disclosing the offending content, makes it impossible for the petitioner to challenge or remedy the allegation, thereby depriving him of his fundamental right to free speech and fair hearing, added the petition.
The Editors Guild of India, in a recent press statement, said that it was 'deeply concerned' by the decision of the Union government to block YouTube Channel 4PM News Network, and termed the move an "opaque use of executive power, without prior notice or opportunity for response". "Arbitrary takedown orders undermine the fundamental right to freedom of speech. [T]he Guild reiterates its demand for a transparent and accountable mechanism for content takedowns, particularly when it concerns journalistic work. National security cannot become a pretext to silence critical voices or independent reporting," added the press statement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
26 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Collegium system imperfect but preserves ‘judiciary's autonomy', says Supreme Court judge
The Supreme Court's Justice Surya Kant has said that the collegium system of appointing judges, despite its imperfections, serves as a 'crucial institutional safeguard' and preserves the judiciary's autonomy, The Indian Express reported on Sunday. Kant, who is slated to become the next chief justice of India, said that the collegium system 'significantly limits interference by the Executive and Legislature, thereby preserving the Judiciary's autonomy and insulating judges from extraneous pressures that could otherwise compromise their impartiality,' the newspaper reported. Under the collegium system, the five most senior judges of the Supreme Court, including the chief justice, decide on the appointments and transfers of judges to the top court and the High Courts. Speaking at Seattle University in the United States on June 4, Kant acknowledged that the system has faced criticism, especially on the lack of publicly articulated criteria for selecting judges. However, he said that 'recent efforts by the Supreme Court signal a growing commitment to enhancing transparency and public confidence in it'. In 2022, the Supreme Court Collegium had published detailed documentation of its deliberations on selecting five judges. Since October 2017, the Collegium has also been publishing its resolution on the court's official website. Kant also said that the 'the judiciary's evolving relationship with its own independence, lies at the very heart of how India's vast, pluralistic democracy continues to function with remarkable cohesion'. He also said that some phases of institutional strain 'particularly during the Emergency' eventually 'gave way to renewed judicial consciousness'. In recent years, the Bharatiya Janata Party government at the Centre has been selectively appointing judges recommended for elevation to the bench by the Supreme Court collegium, which has allowed the Union government to exercise a veto over judicial appointments. The executive and the judiciary have been in a tug-of-war regarding appointments to higher judiciary in recent years. Former Law Minister Kiren Rijiju and Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar have repeatedly criticised the collegium system of appointing judges, contending that it is opaque. In 2014, the BJP-led government had introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act with the objective of making appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts 'more broad-based, transparent, accountable and bringing objectivity in the system'. The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act had proposed to make judicial appointments through a body consisting of the chief justice, two senior Supreme Court judges, the Union law minister and two other eminent persons nominated by the chief justice, the prime minister and the Leader of the Opposition. In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the Act, ruling that it was unconstitutional.
India.com
31 minutes ago
- India.com
Top 5 countries where Google is banned, restricted or blocked, 2nd country on the list is...
Google- Representational image Top 5 countries where Google is banned, restricted or blocked: How many times do you think about a new term and Google it? More than a few times in a day right? But what would you do if Google is banned in your country? Would you be surprised if we tell you that there are some countries in the world where Google is actually banned. As per a report by Times of India, there are multiple countries in the world which have either banned, restricted or blocked Google search engine. Here are the list of nations which have put restrictions on Google due to various reasons. 1. China: China is one of the major countries in the world to have reportedly restricted Google services like Gmail, YouTube and Maps as it promotes its own company Baidu. 2. The second nation on the list is Iran. While it recently lifted ban on Meta's WhatsApp, it has still put restriction on most Google services like Gmail and YouTube. 3. The next country on the list is North Korea. Normal internet services are not available in the country as the residents are not allowed to connect with the rest of the world. 4. Turkmenistan: Similar to North Korea, internet services provided by Google are restricted in the Central Asian country of Turkmenistan. 5. Russia: One of the biggest enemies of the United States, Russia has banned most US companies including Google. Apart from these countries, South Korea, Syria and Cuba have also been known to have either blocked, restricted or banned Google services in their countries due to various reasons including political, business and technological.
Hans India
40 minutes ago
- Hans India
SP MP Ramji Lal Suman threatens nationwide stir if Ambedkar statue not installed in Gwalior HC
Samajwadi Party Rajya Sabha MP Ramji Lal Suman on Monday threatened to launch a nationwide stir if a statue of Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar, the architect of the Indian Constitution, is not installed at the premises of the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. He alleged that authorities are preventing him from travelling to Gwalior, where he intended to raise his voice over the issue. Addressing a press conference in Agra, Suman claimed he and his supporters were stopped from proceeding to Gwalior despite their peaceful intentions. "We are being prevented from travelling not just to Gwalior but also to other districts of Uttar Pradesh. This is a direct attack on our democratic rights," he said. Suman expressed deep concern over what he described as "deliberate efforts to create controversy and disharmony in society". He alleged that even though the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had approved the installation of the Ambedkar statue, the directive was not being followed. "This is not just a violation of a court order, it is an insult to the legacy of Babasaheb Ambedkar,' he said. Warning of widespread protests, Suman said: "If the statue of Babasaheb is not installed at the premises of the Gwalior Bench, a nationwide movement will be launched." He also made a controversial comparison during his press conference, pointing out that a statue of Manu Maharaj -- believed by many to be the author of Manusmriti -- is installed outside the Rajasthan High Court in Jaipur, while Ambedkar's statue is being resisted in Gwalior. "Manu Maharaj was against the dignity of women and Dalits. And yet his statue stands tall, while Babasaheb, who gave us the Constitution, is being disrespected," he said. This isn't the first time Suman has stirred controversy. Earlier, he drew sharp criticism after calling 16th-century Rajput ruler Rana Sanga a "traitor" during a speech in the Rajya Sabha, which sparked outrage from political opponents. Suman said the current developments reflect the Madhya Pradesh government's worrying attitude towards Dalit representation and historical justice. "The message is clear -- certain forces are not comfortable with Ambedkar's legacy," he said.
