The Supreme Court was informed on Tuesday that the Central government has withdrawn its recent order blocking the YouTube channel of 4PM News.

However, the Court agreed to keep the matter pending in light of a larger constitutional challenge to the Information Technology (IT) Rules, 2009.

A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and AS Masih was hearing a plea filed by 4PM News Editor Sanjay Sharma, who had challenged the blocking of the channel as well as the legality of the IT Rules under which the action was taken.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, told the Court that the blocking order has now been withdrawn by the Centre. However, he urged the Court to continue hearing the matter, as the petition also raises substantive questions regarding the constitutionality of the blocking framework under the IT Act.

The Court agreed and tagged the plea with a similar pending matter that challenges the IT Blocking Rules.

According to the petition, 4PM News was blocked on the basis of an undisclosed directive by the Union government, citing grounds of "national security" and "public order." The petitioner argued that such grounds, while recognized under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, are not beyond judicial scrutiny and must be backed by specific reasons and a fair hearing.

“It is settled law that blanket removal of content without an opportunity to be heard violates constitutional protections. Vague references to national security or public order, without disclosing the allegedly offending content, make it impossible for the petitioner to defend himself—undermining both the right to free speech and fair hearing,” the plea stated.

Describing the Centre’s move as a “chilling assault on journalistic independence,” the petitioner had sought to quash the blocking order, which has now been retracted.

However, the larger challenge remains. The petition specifically assails Rules 8, 9, and 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, arguing that they permit content blocking without notice or hearing, thus violating constitutional guarantees.

The petition was drawn by Advocates Mohammad Haider Rizvi and Shaz Khan, and filed through Advocate-on-Record Talha Abdul Rahman.