The Union government informed the Delhi High Court that it blocked the YouTube channel 4 PM News, which has over 8.5 million subscribers, due to alleged conspiracy-driven content and concerns that its monetisation model is part of a broader “foreign influence infrastructure,” Bar and Bench reported.

The Centre has requested that the court order disclosure of the channel’s financial records, arguing that YouTube’s advertising revenue mechanisms can facilitate foreign influence and coordinated digital lobbying. This focus on monetisation, which was largely absent in initial reporting, is central to the government’s defence of the blocking order.

Who Ordered the Block: The affidavit (dated March 10-11) indicates that the takedown process was initiated by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), in coordination with a security agency. Requests were then sent to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), which executes blocking orders under Section 69A of the IT Act.

‘Digital Lobbying’ and Conspiracy Narratives: In its affidavit, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) has argued that the channel engaged in “digital lobbying” by using online content to shape public opinion and policy discourse.

The government alleges that the channel promoted “speculative, one-sided and misleading” narratives and disseminated conspiracy theories on sensitive topics, including:

• The Pahalgam terror attack.
• The situation in Manipur.
• India’s foreign policy and military actions.

The Ministry describes this as a “degenerative editorial pattern” that may undermine institutional trust.

Government Frames Content as Threat to Security and Sovereignty: According to the Centre, the channel’s videos questioned the authenticity of India’s military responses, suggested that foreign actors may have influenced the country’s strategic decisions, and amplified narratives that could align with cross-border propaganda. The government argues that such content poses a risk to public order and falls within the scope of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, which permits blocking content in the interests of protecting sovereignty, defence, and public order.

Monetisation, Algorithms and ‘Echo Chambers’: A central part of the government’s case is its framing of platform economics. The affidavit argues that YouTube’s ad-based revenue model incentivises engagement-heavy, polarising content, while algorithmic amplification can foster the creation of “digital echo chambers.” It further suggests that financial flows tied to such content may reflect or enable coordinated influence efforts. By seeking the channel’s financial records, the Centre aims to substantiate a link between revenue streams and the alleged influence operations.

Channel’s Challenge: The petitioners, including editor Sanjay Sharma, have challenged the blocking action on procedural grounds, arguing that no detailed blocking order or reasons were provided and that the action was carried out through a government request to YouTube. They argue that this measure disproportionately restricts journalistic activity. The channel, with millions of subscribers, is seeking restoration of its account and content.

Blocking order and legal challenge: The dispute arises from a March 2026 blocking order issued at the government’s request, which restricted access to the 4 PM channel and led to the removal of several videos. YouTube subsequently appealed to the Court, citing a lack of transparency in the order and insufficient reasons or procedural safeguards.

Editors Guild Flags ‘Opaque’ Blocking, Pattern of Curbs: The Guild expressed “deep concern” over the government’s directive, which was issued on national security or public order grounds, “without any disclosure of the specific reasons or evidence” and without adhering to principles of natural justice. It described the action as an “opaque use of executive power” and part of a “troubling pattern” of growing restrictions on free speech through non-transparent processes.

The Guild also cautioned that “national security cannot become a pretext to silence critical voices or independent reporting,” and called for a more transparent and accountable process for content takedowns.

Part of wider crackdown after Pahalgam attack: The government blocked the 4 PM channel as part of a sweeping digital crackdown following the April 2025 terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir. Authorities swiftly imposed broad content restrictions on platforms such as YouTube, X, and Instagram, targeting journalists, media outlets, and individuals.

The government issued strict advisories forbidding live reporting of defence operations and invoked Section 69A of the IT Act to block content. The crackdown extended to criminal proceedings, with FIRs filed against individuals such as singer Neha Singh Rathore and academic Madri Kakoti for online posts. Authorities fully blocked the 4 PM News Network’s YouTube channel.

Platforms complied rapidly with government demands, geo-blocking accounts and removing content without disclosing the orders. This has fuelled concerns over transparency and accountability.

What’s at Stake: The case raises broader questions about executive power and transparency in online takedowns. These concerns have been highlighted by the Editors Guild of India, which has warned that such blocking orders reflect an “opaque use of executive power” and a pattern of curbs on free speech through non-transparent processes.

Also read:

• Why did MIB block 16 YouTube news channels?
• India Blocks 16 Pakistani YouTube Channels After Pahalgam Terrorist Attack
• Are YouTube’s content takedowns in accordance with Indian law?