New Delhi: Channel 4PM was blocked because it used YouTube’s advertising model to run a “digital lobbying” operation on behalf of foreign actors, the Centre has told the Delhi High Court, which is hearing a challenge on the government’s action.
The Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, said in an affidavit filed before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, that the channel spread conspiracy theories about the Pahalgam terror attack, questioned India’s military response and amplified cross-border propaganda.
“What was once a relatively linear process of lobbying through traditional media has evolved into a decentralised yet highly potent system of digital narrative propagation, wherein financial inducements, algorithmic amplification, and coordinated messaging converge,” the MeitY affidavit read.
The government’s argument is that YouTube pays creators by views and watch time, giving them a financial incentive to produce content that generates outrage and engagement. This content, MeitY argued, can be amplified by foreign actors with an interest in anti-India narratives.
The case
4PM and its editor-in-chief Sanjay Sharma moved the high court after the YouTube channel—which had 8.4 million subscribers and was among the platform’s top-ranked news channels for three years—was blocked last month.
The petitioner alleged that Alphabet, YouTube’s parent company, acted on a government request under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act to block the channel.
Section 69A empowers the government to block public access to any online information to protect India’s sovereignty, security, public order and foreign relations.
This action, it said, was carried out without notice, requests for documents were denied on grounds of “confidentiality”, and a hearing before an inter-departmental committee of the government was scheduled with less than 24 hours’ notice.
Even during the hearing, undisclosed material was relied upon, denying the channel a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations, the petitioner, seeking withdrawal of the ban, said.
The government action was a “chilling assault on journalistic independence”, the channel argued, saying that “national security” and “public order” are not “talismanic invocations to insulate executive action from scrutiny”.
4PM has sought restoration of the channel, and the matter will come up before Justice Kaurav again Wednesday.
The ban this March was the second time 4PM was taken down by the government.
The channel was blocked in May 2025, in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack in Srinagar, J&K. Its editor-in-chief had challenged the take-down order before the Supreme Court, after which the government withdrew its ban, allowing it back on YouTube.
The government’s stand
Blocking requests for the channel, dated 10 and 11 March, originated from the Ministry of External Affairs and an unspecified security agency, according to the MeitY affidavit.
A review of the channel, the affidavit said, revealed “a sustained pattern of speculative, one-sided, malicious and unsubstantiated dissemination of conspiracy theories, peddled as fact, on matters directly touching India’s external relations, internal security, defence, and public order.”
The government said 4PM insinuated that Indian authorities were involved in the Pahalgam terror attack, questioned the military response, depicted security agencies as complicit, spread false information on Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur and the armed forces, and amplified propaganda “peddled from across the border”.
The content, it said, “manifested a consistent degenerative editorial pattern peddling anti-India/anti-Indian Armed Forces/anti-Indian Foreign Policy sentiments across all subjects, time period and formats”.
The financial records ask
Describing 4PM’s output as something that “is not an outcome of bona fide journalism” but “of a motivated exercise carried out under the guise of journalistic freedom”, MeitY asked the court to summon the channel’s financial records—specifically, the source of its YouTube revenue.
This would require Google to disclose advertiser-level data showing which advertisements ran against which videos.
The government contends that if the court examines the money trail, its case on foreign alignment “would stand duly substantiated”.
On the question of staying the ban, the government said that restoring the channel by an interim order amounts to granting final relief before the merits are heard, which is impermissible.
It also noted that 4PM operates 45 other social media accounts and websites—so blocking one channel does not extinguish its right to expression.
The affidavit further said that a hearing was granted to the petitioner before the final blocking order was passed—contradicting the petitioners’ claim that no opportunity was given.
Any demand, the government said, for a “full-fledged, court-style hearing extending over hours or days, possibly including a right of cross-examination, is wholly untenable”.
MeitY also argued that Section 69A blocking orders touching national security and foreign relations are beyond deep judicial scrutiny.
The central government’s satisfaction on matters concerning “defence of India” and “India’s friendly relations with foreign states” is “essentially a facet of its sovereign functions which is per-se non-justiciable”, it said.
Courts may examine whether material existed before the authority, not whether that material was sufficient, the affidavit noted.
Also Read: Draft DPDP Rules see no difference between India’s allies and adversaries on data transfer