Digital news outlet 4PM News on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that the Union government has withdrawn an order blocking its YouTube channel, Live Law reported.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AS Masih was hearing a petition filed by Sanjay Sharma, the editor-in-chief of 4PM News, against the order issued on the grounds of “national security”. Advocate Kapil Sibal, for 4PM News, told the court that the blocking order had been withdrawn.

On April 29, the YouTube channel of 4PM News was blocked by the Union government. YouTube said that the channel was “unavailable in [India] because of an order from the government related to national security or public order”. The channel has about 7.3 million subscribers.

Sharma claimed that the ban was an attempt to “crush a strong voice of democracy in the name of national security”. The channel had uploaded several videos criticising the Narendra Modi-led Union government after the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, which left 26 dead, Newslaundry reported.

On May 5, the court asked the Union government to respond to Sharma’s petition.

On Tuesday, Sibal urged the bench to keep the plea pending because the petitioner had also challenged the constitutionality of the rules permitting such blocking under the Information Technology Act, Bar and Bench reported.

The bench agreed to the request and tagged the petition with another pending matter challenging the rules.

In his petition before the court, Sharma said that the channel was blocked following an undisclosed direction issued by the Union government on the grounds of “national security” and “public order”. The journalist added that he had not received a formal order on the blocking of the channel.

The petition noted that reasoned orders and a reasonable opportunity to be heard should be given before any blocking under Section 69A of the 2000 Information Technology Act.

This section allows the state to issue directions for the blocking for public access of any information through any computer resource.

“It settled law that the Constitution does not permit blanket removal of content without an opportunity to be heard,” the petition said. “‘National security’ and ‘public order’ are not talismanic invocations to insulate executive action from scrutiny. They are constitutionally recognised grounds under Article 19(2), but are subject to the test of reasonableness and proportionality.”

Article 19(2) of the Constitution permits the state to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression.

“A vague reference to these grounds, without even disclosing the offending content, makes it impossible for the petitioner to challenge or remedy the allegation, thereby depriving him of his fundamental right to free speech and fair hearing,” Sharma added.

The petition called the action taken by the Union government a “chilling assault on journalistic independence” and sought the quashing of the order blocking the YouTube channel.