According to the government's submission, videos hosted on the blocked channel attributed grave acts to the Union of India, including claims of compromising India’s strategic autonomy, taking sovereign stands regarding its military position under foreign influence, possessing prior awareness of military action in West Asia, endangering Indians abroad, and permitting foreign policy to be shaped by communal considerations at the behest of foreign states involved in inter-se conflicts. This response follows a legal challenge by 4PM and its editor-in-chief, Sanjay Sharma, against the blocking of their channel, which reportedly boasted over 8.4 million subscribers and held a top ranking for the past three years. The petitioners stated that the channel and 26 specific videos were blocked in March 2026 after Google acted on a government request, though neither Google nor the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) provided a formal order or reasons.
The government has characterized the 4PM platform as a primary example of digital lobbying designed to perpetrate influence operations. The affidavit explained that while foreign state and non-state actors historically used conventional mechanisms like print media and curated internet content to influence decision-making, this function has transitioned to social media and online channels. The government argued that 4PM operates as a digital echo chamber where repetitive content is circulated to promote a single narrative and influence public opinion. These activities are described as digital lobbying where influence is created through repetition and monetization, having a direct and irreparable impact on the integrity of the Union of India’s sovereign decision-making process.
Furthermore, the government noted that 4PM has not disclosed revenue generated through content monetization, suggesting that financial records would substantiate its contentions. Defending its legal authority, the government maintained that Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, must be read in the widest possible terms to regulate access to unlawful information. It argued that the expression "any information" in conjunction with "any computer resource" is of expansive amplitude and covers entire channels rather than just individual pieces of content. The case, involving an affidavit prepared by Advocate Rajat Nair and settled by Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, is scheduled for a hearing before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav on Wednesday. This legal confrontation underscores a significant escalation in the state's efforts to curb digital influence operations deemed a threat to national sovereignty.
About The Author
.jpg)
Comment List