Blocking of Entire Social Media Channel for Isolated Video Infractions Violates Principle of Proportionality.

The petitioners, owners of the YouTube channel "4PM" (which had 83 lakh subscribers), challenged a blocking order issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).

On March 12, 2026, YouTube notified the petitioners that their entire channel was being blocked pursuant to Rule 16(2) of the Intermediary Rules, citing concerns related to "national security or public order".

Although an Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC) hearing was conducted on March 18, 2026, the final order dated March 24, 2026, was allegedly not communicated to the petitioners, nor were the specific reasons for the wholesale blocking provided.

The Government justified the block by claiming the content was detrimental to India’s sovereignty and that the petitioners had prior instances of rule breaches.

1. Whether the wholesale blocking of a YouTube channel is sustainable when only a small fraction of the total content (26 out of 50,000 videos) is found to be objectionable.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the blocking order and the IDC's recommendations to effectively exercise their right to legal defense.

Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 ("Intermediary Rules"), which governs the emergency and formal blocking of content in the interest of national security and public order.

The Court also relied on the principle of proportionality and judicial precedents, specifically Prateek Sharma v. Union of India and Kumar Nayan v. Union of India, which establish that balances must be struck between regulatory oversight and the right to operate a digital platform by allowing the restoration of channels subject to the removal of specific offending material.

The Court observed that out of approximately 50,000 videos posted by the petitioners, the Government identified only 26 as objectionable.

Rather than upholding a total block of the channel, the Court applied the logic of "balancing equities" as seen in previous similar litigations.

The Court reasoned that the petitioners' right to defend themselves was hampered by the non-communication of the specific blocking orders and findings.

By directing the temporary blocking of only the specific offending videos while restoring the remainder of the channel, the Court ensured that the state's concerns regarding "national security" were addressed without permanently extinguishing the petitioners' platform for non-offending speech.

The Court disposed of the petition by granting interim relief and directing a structured resolution: (i) Petitioners must appear before the IDC to justify the specific flagged material; (ii) The Ministry must supply the petitioners with the IDC's recommendations and the final order passed by the Secretary; and (iii) The Government retains the liberty to monitor the channel and take recourse if new offending material is posted.

All rights and contentions of the parties were left open for final adjudication by the appropriate authority.