In Sanjay Sharma and Anr v. UOI, the Central Government has defended before the Delhi High Court its decision to block the “4 PM” YouTube channel, stating that the platform was spreading anti-India narratives and engaging in digital lobbying.
The response was filed through the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in opposition to a plea seeking restoration of the channel. The petition was moved by Sanjay Sharma, the editor of the channel, along with the 4 PM News Network.
The Centre has alleged that the channel consistently published speculative, one-sided, and unverified content on sensitive issues. These included matters relating to India’s external relations, internal security, defence, and public order, raising serious concerns about its impact.
According to the affidavit, the videos attributed grave allegations to the Union Government. These included claims about compromising India’s strategic autonomy, influencing military decisions under foreign pressure, and misrepresenting India’s foreign policy and defence actions.
The Government further argued that the channel carried false and destabilising content on topics such as terrorism, Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur, and the Pahalgam terror attack. It also raised concerns about narratives that could erode public trust in the armed forces.
“It is further submitted that the content published by the channel insinuated great conspiracy theories such as Indian authorities’ involvement in the Pahalgam attack, it questioned the genuineness of India’s military response, depicted security agencies as complicit and presented defence related debts and schemes through fabricated narratives that could erode confidence in the armed forces,” the affidavit states.
The Centre justified its action under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It maintained that the content was detrimental to the sovereignty and integrity of India, defence interests, security of the state, public order, and friendly relations with foreign countries.
It further submitted that the channel’s operations reflected a consistent pattern rather than isolated instances. The Government described it as a “digital echo chamber” promoting a single narrative through repetitive and selective dissemination of content.
“It is submitted that the manner in which Petitioner’s channel operates, clearly reflects the hallmark of a “digital echo chamber”, where selected and repetitive content is circulated to promote a single narrative to influence public opinion,” the Centre stated.
The affidavit also highlighted the evolving nature of digital influence, where algorithmic amplification and financial incentives can shape public discourse. It described the platform as part of a broader system of “digital narrative propagation” capable of influencing sovereign decision-making.
The Government argued that disabling the entire channel was a proportionate response. It contended that removing individual videos would be ineffective given the scale and pattern of content dissemination.
The petitioners have challenged the blocking order, seeking restoration of the channel and its content. They have also requested the Court to call for records related to the blocking decision and to set aside the order issued by the Ministry.
The channel, which reportedly had over 84 lakh subscribers, was blocked on March 12 following a legal request. The matter is currently pending before the Delhi High Court.
——————————————–
Have a case update, article, or deal to share? Courtroom Today welcomes contributions from lawyers, law firms, and legal professionals. Write to contact@courtroomtoday.com
