The Supreme Court was informed on Tuesday that the Central government has officially withdrawn its blocking order against the 4PM News YouTube channel. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the channel’s editor-in-chief Sanjay Sharma, conveyed this development to a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai — to be chief justice of India from tomorrow — and A.G. Masih.

Despite the channel now being unblocked, however, the court has decided to keep the petition alive in order to examine broader questions concerning the validity of the IT Blocking Rules, according to a report in LiveLaw.

When the bench inquired whether anything remained in the matter following the withdrawal of the blocking order, Sibal responded: “Interim relief has become infructuous. May be tagged with the pending matter challenging IT Blocking Rules.”

Justice Gavai agreed that the issue could still be pursued on principle: “So for academic purpose, it survives.”

Last week, the court had to both the Central government and YouTube after Sharma filed a petition contesting the blocking of his channel. At that time, the bench had considered tagging his case with another ongoing challenge to the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.

However, Sibal had urged the court to consider interim relief, prompting the listing of the matter for today.

Sharma had filed the petition calling the government’s blocking action “arbitrary and unconstitutional.” He claimed the channel was taken down without notice or hearing, based on an unrevealed order issued by the Union government under the IT Blocking Rules.

The petition argued that such action violates his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Among his key demands, Sharma sought:

• Immediate restoration of access to the 4PM News channel

• Disclosure of the blocking order and any related documentation issued by the government to YouTube

• Quashing of the blocking order once it is produced

In addition to seeking relief in his individual case, Sharma challenged the legal framework of the 2009 Blocking Rules. Specifically, he requested:

• Rule 16 be struck down, or that the word “shall” be read as a mandatory requirement to ensure transparency

• Rule 8 be modified so that the word “or” is read as “and”, ensuring that notices are sent both to the intermediary (e.g., YouTube) and the content creator

• Rule 9 be amended to require:

  • Advance notice

  • An opportunity for hearing, and

  • Communication of the interim order to the originator of the content before a final blocking decision is made.

On 5 May, the Supreme Court issued formal notice on the petition to the Union government, the ministry of home affairs, and YouTube.

Though the immediate issue of blocking has been resolved, the case now turns to the larger constitutional and procedural questions surrounding digital censorship and due process in content takedown orders.