Order blocking YouTube channel ‘4PM' withdrawn, Supreme Court told
'They have withdrawn the blocking order,' senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, informed a Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih.
The apex court was hearing a plea filed by Sanjay Sharma, who is the editor of digital news platform 4PM, seeking quashing of an order blocking the channel.
The plea claimed the blocking was effected by the intermediary pursuant to an undisclosed direction allegedly issued by the Centre citing vague grounds of "national security" and "public order".
Mr. Sibal requested the Bench that the plea be tagged with separate pending petitions which have challenged Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
Also Read | Over 8,000 X accounts blocked in India; The Wire says will challenge site blocking
He said Mr. Sharma's petition also sought quashing of Rule 16 of the 2009 Rules.
Rule 16 says strict confidentiality shall be maintained regarding all the requests and complaints received and actions taken thereof.
The plea also sought striking down or reading down Rule 9 of the Blocking Rules, 2009, to mandate issuance of a notice, opportunity of hearing and communication of a copy of the interim order to the originator or creator of the content prior to passing of a final order.
The Bench tagged the plea with the pending separate pleas.
On May 5, the top court sought responses from the Centre and others on Sharma's plea, which said the blocking was a "chilling assault on journalistic independence" and the right of public to receive information.
The plea, filed through advocate Talha Abdul Rahman, said no blocking order or underlying complaint was furnished to the petitioner, violating both statutory and constitutional safeguards.
The petition said it was a settled law that the Constitution does not permit 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," it said.
The plea said the action was not only ultra vires the parent statute but also strikes at the core of democratic accountability ensured by a free press.
'The blocking is a chilling assault on journalistic independence and the right of the public to receive information,' it said.
Seeking a direction to the Centre to produce the order with reasons and records, if any, issued to the intermediary for blocking the channel, it asked for a direction to quash the blocking order.
The plea said the petitioner's YouTube channel was blocked without giving any fair opportunity to clarify or justify his case.
Blocking Rules, 2009, including Rules 8, 9, and 16, infringe upon fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, particularly the rights to freedom of speech and expression, right to equality and the right to life and personal liberty, it added.
It said the authorities concerned have a duty under the law to ensure that blocking of YouTube channels were not done arbitrarily, suppressing the freedom of speech and expression.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
19 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Can't let Governors sit on bills indefinitely: SC
New Delhi: Permitting governors to sit indefinitely on bills passed by state legislatures may render the democratic process and the will of the people 'defunct', the Supreme Court observed on Thursday, as it continued hearing the presidential reference on whether the courts can prescribe timelines for gubernatorial and presidential assent. The Supreme Court building in New Delhi. (HT Photo) A constitution bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar is examining President Droupadi Murmu's Article 143 reference made in May. The reference seeks clarity on the top court's April 8 ruling which, for the first time, laid down timelines for governors and the president to decide on state bills pending before them. 'If a particular function is entrusted to the governor and for years he withholds it, will that also be beyond the scope of judicial review of this court? When this court has set aside constitutional amendments taking away judicial review as violating the basic structure, can we now say that however high a constitutional authority may be, courts will still be powerless if it does not act?' the bench asked. The bench also pressed the Centre to explain what remedy exists when governors indefinitely delay action. 'Under Article 200, if we hold that the governor has unlimited power to withhold a bill for time immemorial, what is the safeguard for a duly elected legislature? Suppose a legislature elected by a two-thirds majority passes a bill unanimously, and the governor simply sits on it, it would make the legislature totally defunct,' it further remarked. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, countered that while the court's concern may be justified, it cannot assume jurisdiction to set time limits where the Constitution is silent. 'A justification can never confer jurisdiction. Every problem in this country may not have a solution in the Supreme Court. Some problems must find solutions within the system,' he said. According to Mehta, the solution was in the 'political process, not judicial directions'. He argued that chief ministers could engage directly with governors, prime ministers, or even the President to resolve such impasses. 'Such issues have been arising for decades but have always been resolved through political statesmanship and maturity. Why cannot we trust other constitutional functionaries? The remedy ultimately will lie with Parliament by way of an amendment, not by judicial legislation,' Mehta submitted. At this, the bench interjected: 'When there is no outer limit, can a constitutional interpretation be left to a vacuum? Though a time limit may not be prescribed, there must be some way the process works. There cannot be a situation where not acting on a bill itself is a full stop… nothing further.' The bench also questioned whether judicial review could be completely excluded. The court observed: 'The decision may not be justiciable, but the decision-making process certainly falls within the ambit of judicial review.' Mehta, however, warned that opening the door to scrutiny would lead to 'multilevel challenges' at every stage of a governor's or president's decision under Articles 200 and 201. 'Our problem is every step before the final decision will also be challenged because they can also constitute a 'decision',' he argued. He cited judicial precedents where the court held that fixed timelines for criminal trials could not be judicially prescribed, to reinforce his submission that timelines in constitutional processes too cannot be judicially imposed. But the bench pressed further, citing petitions already filed by Kerala, Punjab, and West Bengal. 'Suppose a decision is not taken for four years. What happens to the democratic set-up of the government? What happens to the will of the two-thirds majority of the legislature?' it asked. Mehta responded with an analogy: 'Take the example of a trial pending for 10 years. Can the President step in and declare that the punishment is deemed to have been undergone because the judiciary has delayed? Separation of powers means some issues are non-justiciable.' The court, however, made it clear that it was not dealing with a hypothetical concern. 'We are having petitions from at least four states,' the court underlined. The presidential reference, prompted by the court's April judgment in the Tamil Nadu case, asks whether the judiciary can impose timelines on constitutional authorities like governors and the president when the Constitution itself is silent. In that ruling, a two-judge bench also fixed a three-month deadline for the president to decide on bills referred by a governor, and one month for a governor to act on re-enacted bills. It had even invoked Article 142 to deem 10 Tamil Nadu bills as assented to, after holding that the governor's prolonged inaction was 'illegal'. Mehta criticised the notion of deemed assent. 'Deemed assent would mean your lordships substituted yourselves for the governor and declared the assent deemed to have been granted. Article 142 cannot be used to amend the Constitution,' he argued. The bench, however, maintained that courts cannot abdicate their role as custodians of the Constitution. 'Every wrong has to have a remedy. Whether the hands of the constitutional court will be tied when a constitutional functionary refuses to discharge their function without any valid reason? Whether the court will say we are powerless?' the bench asked. Arguments on the reference will continue on August 26.
Indian Express
19 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Punjab BJP working president dares CM Mann: ‘why getting scared…fight us politically'
Punjab BJP leader Ashwani Sharma Thursday dared Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann to fight the saffron party politically instaed of 'getting scared' and 'forcibly halting' party's awareness camps for central schemes. 'I want to ask Punjab CM Bhagwant Mann to fight a political battle. Why are you getting scared of the BJP?' Don't you want the poor to get benefits of the central schemes,' Sharma, the Punjab BJP working president said. Sharma was addressing media after leading a party delegation that met Governor Gulab Chand Kataria seeking his intervention over Punjab Police detaining its leaders and workers at 39 places in state where they were conducting outreach programme 'BJP De Sewadar, Aa Gaye Tuhade Dwar' to 'ensure that the poor, the scheduled caste community, farmers, youth and women get the benefits of public welfare schemes of the Narendra Modi government at the Centre'. The BJP also alleged that several party leaders were detained. They include Sunny Kainth, president of BJP Rural (Ludhiana) from his Flower Enclave office; former Jalandhar MP Sushil Kumar Rinku from Adampur; senior BJP leader K D Bhandari from Shahkot in Jalandhar; Pathankot district BJP president Suresh Kumar; and Preetpal Sharma from Gidderbaha, who switched from the AAP to the BJP in November last year. BJP leader Vandana Sangwan and Fazilka district president Kaka Kamboj were detained from the Raipur village in Fazilka during a camp in the morning. Sharma said his party will burn effigies of the AAP government in each Vidhan Sabha constituency on Friday. Earlier, in the memorandum submitted to the Governor, the delegation alleged that there was 'deliberate harassment' being inflicted upon the party workers, volunteers, and the innocent inhabitants of several villages across Punjab, where awareness camps have been initiated to spread vital information about the central government welfare schemes. 'Our party workers and volunteers, with the consent and active participation of the local residents, have been conducting these awareness camps in different villages,' said the memorandum. The delegation accused the Punjab government 'of creating obstacles in this noble cause'. 'In almost every camp, the state police and local administration have intervened to stop BJP workers and volunteers from providing information. This disruption is being justified on two pretexts–that prior permission from the Deputy Commissioner/SDM is required, and that parties are allegedly collecting personal data of the inhabitants,' it said. No such permission is mandated under any law for awareness programmes of this nature, and the allegation regarding data collection is false, baseless, and politically motivated. Further the volunteers and workers engaged in these camps hold valid Common Service Centre (CSC) IDs. Hence, there is no illegality in the conduct of such programmes,' it said. The allegation regarding data collection is false, baseless, and politically motivated, it said. The BJP delegation urged the Governor to direct the Punjab government to immediately desist from 'harassing' BJP workers, volunteers, and local inhabitants who are voluntarily participating in these awareness programmes. Later, Sharma said the BJP workers just acted as a bridge by telling the poor about the camps. He claimed that so far 1.57 lakh people have availed the benefits of these camps which began in May.
Indian Express
19 minutes ago
- Indian Express
SC decision on pleas seeking stay on stray dog order likely today
The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce its decision on pleas seeking stay of its August 11 order directing relocation of stray dogs to dedicated shelters on Friday. A three-judge bench presided by Justice Vikram Nath had on August 14 reserved its interim order on the issue of managing the stray dog population in the National Capital Region (NCR). The top court's intervention came just days after another bench initiated suo motu proceedings and ordered relocation of strays from the streets to dedicated shelters. Reserving its decision, the bench, headed by Justice Nath, and comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria, directed all intervenors to file affidavits with supporting evidence. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the government had argued: 'Sterilisation does not stop rabies. Even if you immunise that does not stop mutilation of children.' 'There is a vocal minority view against a silent majority view,' he added. Mehta said that while the Rules exist, they are inadequate and the top court must intervene to address the issue. The 2023 Animal Birth Control Rules deal with the management of the stray dog and cat population. The rules reclassified them as 'community animals', included provisions for community animal feeding and specified that stray dogs cannot be displaced from their regular place of habitation. The apex court's August 11 order had specifically directed that the stray dogs should not be brought back to their habitat after sterilisation. The suo motu case initiated by a bench headed by Justice JB Pardiwala was subsequently re-assigned by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai to the three-judge bench headed by Justice Nath. It was brought to the notice of the court that another bench had in a matter relating to strays called for a compassionate approach.
