Journalist moves Supreme Court against YouTube channel ban over ‘national security'
By Aditya Bhagchandani Published on May 2, 2025, 11:22 IST
Senior journalist and Editor-in-Chief of YouTube news platform 4PM, Sanjay Sharma, has approached the Supreme Court seeking relief against the blocking of his channel by YouTube on the alleged grounds of national security and public order, citing a violation of fundamental rights and a lack of due process.
In his petition, Sharma called the blocking action 'arbitrary and unconstitutional,' pointing out that no prior notice or hearing was provided before YouTube acted on an undisclosed government order under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. He argued that this violated his right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Key Reliefs Sought: Disclosure and quashing of the undisclosed blocking order.
Reading down or striking down Rules 8, 9, and 16 of the IT Blocking Rules, 2009 to ensure transparency and safeguard fundamental rights.
Mandatory issuance of notice and opportunity of hearing to the content originator, not just the intermediary.
A re-examination of Rule 16's confidentiality clause, which prevents disclosure of reasons behind a blocking order. Grounds Raised:
The petition argues that the current blocking framework: Infringes Article 14, 19(1)(a), and 21, violating equality, speech, and personal liberty.
Is ultra vires the parent IT Act, especially Section 69A, which mandates written, reasoned orders.
Permits indefinite blocking without accountability, especially in emergency situations.
Curtails press freedom and enables suppression of independent journalism without due justification.
Sharma further questioned why only the Enforcement Directorate (ED)'s stance among government bodies was used as a basis for action, while the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, CoC, Resolution Professional, and others had no objection to his platform. Editors Guild Condemns Action:
The Editors Guild of India has strongly condemned the blocking, calling it an example of opaque executive action and part of a 'troubling pattern' of curbing free speech through non-transparent processes. It pointed to previous takedowns of The Kashmir Wallah and Vikatan, and emphasized that national security cannot become a pretext to silence critical journalism.
The petition, filed through advocates Syed Mohammad Haider Rizvi, Talha Abdul Rahman, and M Shaz Khan, seeks urgent restoration of the 4PM channel and a constitutional review of India's internet censorship rules.
Aditya Bhagchandani serves as the Senior Editor and Writer at Business Upturn, where he leads coverage across the Business, Finance, Corporate, and Stock Market segments. With a keen eye for detail and a commitment to journalistic integrity, he not only contributes insightful articles but also oversees editorial direction for the reporting team.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Bill Maher mocks Dems for trying to find ‘their Joe Rogan,' suggests figuring out how they lost him
'Real Time' host Bill Maher mocked the Democratic Party's attempt to find 'their Joe Rogan,' pointing out the irony that the podcaster had leaned left until he became disillusioned with the party. The host explained, 'One idea that's getting a lot of attention is the Dems need to find their Joe Rogan, a liberal Joe Rogan.' Maher argued that rather than 'conjuring up a new Joe Rogan,' Democrats should be asking themselves how they lost him in the first place. Advertisement Rogan previously endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., in the 2020 election. It wasn't until 2024 that Rogan publicly endorsed President Donald Trump. The 'Real Time' host lampooned the idea that the real reason why former Vice President Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election is because 'Republicans have a podcast.' 'Okay, maybe. Or, you could consider this,' Maher jeered. 'Instead of conjuring up a new Joe Rogan, ask yourself why you lost the old one, because he used to be on your side.' In 2024, regarding the Democratic desire to find its own Rogan, the podcaster said, 'They had me.' 'I was on their side,' he added. Advertisement Maher noted that he's watched the political evolution of both Rogan and Musk and their party affiliations didn't switch 'overnight.' Youtube/Real Time with Bill Maher Maher compared Rogan's political transformation to Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who was also a liberal who ended up being 'driven to the other camp by bad attitudes and bad ideas.' Maher noted that he's watched the political evolution of both Rogan and Musk and their party affiliations didn't switch 'overnight.' Maher referenced a 2022 post on then-Twitter from Elon Musk in which he shared a chart depicting his feeling that the Democratic Party had moved too far to the left for him, rather than his ideology moving to the right. Advertisement Rogan previously endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., in the 2020 election. Rogan said that Democrats have moved so far that it 'left a basically liberal centrist like him — now labeled a conservative,' adding that he related to Musk's post. Maher also highlighted attempts by the left to cancel Rogan and Musk as a key reason they abandoned the party. Advertisement 'They tried real hard to cancel Rogan a few years ago — and when Elon hosted 'Saturday Night Live' in 2021, well before he was a Trumper — some of the cast gave him the cold shoulder for the sin of being rich,' he recalled. 'You think people don't remember when you do this s— to them?' The late-night host asserted that while he's never left the party, Democrats need to work hard to get 'all the guys in America like Joe and Elon' back on their side, but assured them that it's still possible.
Washington Post
4 hours ago
- Washington Post
Supreme Court to hear case on IQ tests and death penalty next term
The Supreme Court will hear a case next term centered on the role of multiple IQ scores in determining an Alabama murderer's eligibility for the death penalty, according to a list issued by the court late Friday. In Hamm v. Smith, the state of Alabama is arguing that Joseph Smith — who was sentenced to death for a murder in 1997 — should be executed because he has not proved that his IQ is 70 or below, as required by state law. However, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama vacated Smith's death sentence after ruling he is intellectually disabled because the score on one of his IQ tests could fall below 70 when accounting for margin of error. Smith had obtained five IQ scores that ranged from 72 to 78. The Supreme Court justices agreed to hear Hamm v. Smith to determine a limited question: 'Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim,' referring to the 2002 landmark decision Atkins v. Virginia, which ruled that executing those with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In November, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision to remand the case for further consideration. In it, the justices said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — which had affirmed the lower court's decision to vacate Smith's death sentence — had been unclear in why it had issued that decision. In February, the state of Alabama again asked the Supreme Court to intervene, saying the Eleventh Circuit 'watered down the most objective prong of the test, overrode Alabama's definition of intellectual disability, and shattered Atkins's promise to leave meaningful discretion to the States.' 'This case was not close: Smith scored 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74 on five full-scale IQ tests. There is no way to conclude from these five numbers that Smith's true IQ is likely to be 70 or below,' the state of Alabama argued, also adding that evaluating multiple IQ scores is 'complicated' and that the Supreme Court has not specified how to do it. 'Smith could take hundreds of IQ tests, score 75 on all of them, yet his IQ still 'could be' 70, according to the panel [the Eleventh Circuit], because every test could have erred by 5 points. The panel failed to appreciate that multiple tests together can provide a more accurate estimate than each test alone,' the state argued. The Supreme Court's next term is scheduled to begin in October. The list of new cases was not expected until Monday morning, but email notifications about the list were inadvertently sent Friday evening because of a technical glitch, so the court chose to release the list of cases earlier than scheduled. In a statement that accompanied the early release, court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said the notifications were sent prematurely because of an 'apparent software malfunction.' Justin Jouvenal contributed to this report.
Fox News
4 hours ago
- Fox News
How Justice Clarence Thomas led SCOTUS to kill DEI
Clarence Thomas has spent his professional life trying to return American law to the Declaration of Independence's founding promise that individuals should be judged as individuals rather than as members of racial, gender, or ethnic groups. It seems that his peers on the high court have been listening. Thomas' belief in individual rights precedes his time on the court. For example, in a 1985 law review article, Thomas discussed his daily responsibilities of enforcing the nation's civil rights laws as chairman of the EEOC. He wrote: "I intend to take EEO enforcement back to where it started by defending the rights of individuals who are hurt by discriminatory practices. … Those who insist on arguing that the principle of equal opportunity, the cornerstone of civil rights, means preferences for certain groups have relinquished their roles as moral and ethical leaders in this area." SUPREME COURT RULES UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF STRAIGHT OHIO WOMAN WHO CLAIMED DISCRIMINATIONJustice Thomas has reiterated that American law protects individual rather than groups rights throughout his three-and-a-half decades on the nation's highest court. In 1995's Missouri v. Jenkins, for instance, Thomas became the first Supreme Court justice to directly criticize Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Although he called state-mandated segregation "despicable," he said that the Court was wrong in 1954 to rely on disputable social science evidence to declare segregation unconstitutional rather than invoking the "constitutional principle" that "the government must treat citizens as individuals, and not as members of racial, ethnic or religious groups." Justice Thomas has made similar pronouncements in many other judicial opinions. His concurring opinion in 2007's Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 is perhaps the strongest articulation of his conception of equality: "The dissent attempts to marginalize the notion of a colorblind Constitution by consigning it to me and Members of today's plurality. … But I am quite comfortable in the company I keep. My view of the Constitution is Justice Harlan's view in Plessy: 'Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.'" More recently, Justice Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion in the Supreme Court's 2023 decisions holding that colleges and universities cannot consider race in admissions decisions that "While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, I hold out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law." Last week's Supreme Court decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services signals that proponents of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs should stop pretending that they are complying with the law. After all, one of the most liberal members of the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote in an opinion for a unanimous Court that the "background circumstances" rule imposed by several lower courts of appeal requiring members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII discrimination claim is inconsistent with the text of Title VII and the Supreme Court's anti-discrimination precedents. CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINIONJustice Jackson's opinion for the Court reversing the lower courts might as well have been penned by Justice Thomas himself. Justice Jackson quoted the text of Title VII that makes it illegal to take an adverse employment action against "any individual." She further quoted a 2020 Supreme Court decision, Bostock v. Clayton County, that held that the "law's focus on individuals rather than groups [is] anything but academic." She added: "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual'—without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone."Justice Thomas joined Justice Jackson's opinion for the Court "in full." But he also issued a concurring opinion in which he suggested that the "background circumstances" rule is not only inconsistent with the statutory text of Title VII but is "plainly at odds with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection." Most important for present purposes, Thomas made clear that if proponents of DEI are hoping that the Ames decision has nothing to do with their DEI programs, they are sorely mistaken. "American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans," he wrote. "Initiatives of this kind have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority." CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPWhen Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016, Court watchers openly speculated about who would replace him as the intellectual leader of the conservative legal movement. Clarence Thomas has unquestionably filled that role. After all, in Ames even Justice Thomas's liberal colleagues on the nation's highest court conceded that American law protects individual rather than group rights.
