Bombay High Court, on Monday, made a pivotal decision regarding the interim plea by renowned comedian Kunal Kamra.
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court, on Monday, made a pivotal decision regarding the interim plea by renowned comedian Kunal Kamra. Kamra’s plea sought to halt the establishment of Fact Check Units (FCUs) pending the court’s final judgment on the new rule’s legality, which grants the government authority to identify and act against false online content. Justice A.S. Chandurkar, appointed to resolve the matter following a split decision by a two-judge bench, opted not to impose restrictions on the central government until his definitive ruling is announced.
The case has attracted considerable attention due to its implications for online freedom of expression and government regulation. Senior advocate Navroz Seervai, representing Kamra, argued for the postponement of the FCU’s implementation, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the status quo in light of the judges’ divergent views. Seervai highlighted:
“the final judgment, which would be determined by the third judge’s opinion, would reveal the majority stance due to the split verdict.”
ALSO READ: Orissa High Court Orders Reevaluation For Ex-Serviceman’s Job Application Case (lawchakra.in)
This underscores the critical nature of the impending decision and its potential impact on the legal landscape regarding online content regulation.
Contrastingly, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, defending the Union government’s stance, opposed the plea. He described the FCU as a “minimalist approach” aimed at tackling misinformation and asserted that the initiative would not unduly infringe on freedom of expression. Mehta reassured that
“aggrieved parties could always seek legal recourse without facing immediate punishment,”
thereby defending the government’s position on the matter. He further justified the Information Technology Amendment Rules, 2023, as a necessary measure to combat fake news, stressing the importance of not “depriving the public of the truth, especially when intermediaries are not involved.”
The legal battle stems from a series of petitions, including one by Kamra, challenging the constitutional validity of amendments to the Information Technology Rules. These amendments mandate that intermediaries, such as social media platforms, refrain from publishing or hosting misleading information related to central government affairs, as identified by a government-sanctioned fact-checking unit. Critics argue that this could lead to censorship and infringe on freedom of speech and expression.
Justice Chandurkar’s refusal to stay the formation of the FCU until a final verdict is reached has sparked a debate on the balance between regulating false information and preserving free speech. The division among the justices is evident: Justice G.S. Patel viewed the rule as tantamount to censorship, whereas Justice Neela Gokhale believed it did not prohibit critical opinions, satire, or parody, provided they are not misleading.
The petitions challenge the broad and vague nature of the amended Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Information Technology Rules, 2021, arguing that it could stifle dissent and criticism of the government. The rule requires intermediaries to ensure that their platforms do not host false information as identified by the FCU, failing which they could lose their “safe harbour” protections under the IT Act.
Case title- Kunal Kamra v. Union of India with connected cases
