Centre Defends Blocking of ‘4 PM’ YouTube Channel, Calls It a Hub of Anti-India Propaganda and Digital Lobbying

Government tells Delhi High Court the channel ran a systematic pattern of conspiracy theories targeting India’s military, foreign policy and internal security — and that removing individual videos would be insufficient

The Central Government has filed a formal response in the Delhi High Court defending its decision to block the ‘4 PM’ YouTube channel, characterising the platform as an instrument of coordinated anti-India narrative-building that operated far beyond the boundaries of legitimate journalism.

Filed through the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the government’s affidavit describes the channel’s output as a sustained and deliberate pattern of speculative, one-sided, and unsubstantiated content dressed up as factual reporting — touching on some of India’s most sensitive areas including national security, external relations, defence, and public order.

Among the most serious allegations, the Centre stated that videos on the channel attributed grave actions to the Union of India — including suggestions that India had compromised its strategic autonomy under foreign influence, had prior knowledge of military action in West Asia, and was allowing its foreign policy to be shaped by communal considerations at the behest of external powers. The government further stated that the channel had insinuated Indian authorities were involved in the Pahalgam terror attack, questioned the credibility of India’s military response, and portrayed security agencies as complicit in wrongdoing.

Content related to the internal security situations in Jammu and Kashmir and Manipur was also flagged as “per se false, inciting and destabilising,” the affidavit stated.

Invoking Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the government argued that the channel’s content was detrimental to India’s sovereignty and integrity, its defence, state security, public order, and friendly relations with foreign nations — all recognised grounds for blocking digital content under the law.

Beyond the question of harmful content, the Centre framed the channel’s operations in broader terms, describing it as a case of “digital lobbying” and accusing it of functioning as a “digital echo chamber” designed to conduct organised “influence operations.” The government contended that the channel was not merely reporting news but was deliberately manufacturing and amplifying a single narrative, aided by algorithmic reach and revenue-driven engagement incentives.

“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,” the affidavit noted, warning that such mechanisms could be used to exert pressure on sovereign decision-making in alignment with external interests.

On the question of remedy, the government took a firm position that blocking the channel in its entirety — rather than attempting to remove individual offending videos — was the only proportionate and effective response, given what it described as the account’s systematic agenda of publishing unlawful content.

The petition challenging the block has been filed by the channel’s editor Sanjay Sharma and 4 PM News Network, who are seeking restoration of the channel and all its content, along with a direction to call for records related to the blocking order and to quash the Ministry’s decision. The channel, which had accumulated over 84 lakh subscribers, was blocked by YouTube on 12 March following what was described as a legal request.

This is not the first time the channel has faced such action. It was also blocked in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack last year, though the Central Government subsequently withdrew that blocking order in May 2025, as it informed the Supreme Court at the time.

The matter is currently before the Delhi High Court, where proceedings are ongoing.