The matter was assigned to Justice AS Chandurkar of Bombay High Court after the bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale delivered a split verdict on the matter on January 31.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Maharashtra: On Thursday (29 Feb), the Bombay High Court reserved its order regarding the interim relief sought by petitioners, including stand-up comic Kunal Kamra, aiming for a halt on the establishment of Fact Check units (FCU) as per the amendment to IT Rules, 2023.
The FCU, as empowered under the Information Technology Rules, holds the authority to identify and label ‘false’ or ‘fake’ online news related to any activities of the Central government.
ALSO READ: Rahul Gandhi Robber | NBDSA Orders Aaj Tak to Remove Video Depicting Rahul as Robber
The case was assigned to Justice AS Chandurkar following a split verdict delivered by Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale on January 31.
Representing the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated on Thursday,
“At the behest of few individuals, there would be an interim order, which could become ‘a cause for mischief’.”
He emphasized that the provision is not obnoxious or disproportionate and serves public interest.
“However, now we have a situation where we have a split verdict, and I would be failing in my duty to the people at large if I continue my statement for few individuals to have that comfort of no chilling effect. It would not be fair or proper to deprive the people at large of knowing the truth, especially when intermediaries are not before the court, private individuals are,”
-Mehta added.
“We are dealing with a completely different medium which is not restricted to any geographical limit. There is anonymity of the statements and quick reach to crores of people. Our country is trying to tackle this problem with a minimalistic approach,”
-he stated.
He reiterated his earlier argument before the division bench, stating,
“one can continue to criticise the government and its policies and that is not within the purview of the provision under challenge.”
In response to Justice Chandurkar’s query about the absence of adversarial evidence on record, Mehta pointed to various instances of fake news or social media posts, stating,
“Nobody has come to us, because there is no FCU. If it was in place, we would have shown the data. But I have shown you news which we found to be fake. It is not against criticism, political view, etc. It is a question of proportionality.”
However, the petitioners argued that many examples of fake information cited by Mehta were effectively countered by the Press Information Bureau, without any FCU.
Advocate Navroz Seervai, representing Kamra, contested Mehta’s assertion on public interest, suggesting that it implies the government is the-
“sole repository of public good and ensuring public safety and well-being”.
Describing this as the “nanny state”, he stated:
“The erroneous belief that government knows best that only government can look after the interest and well-being of citizens who cannot be trusted to be intelligent, mature, discerning. Now my respectful submission is that such a theory has to be rejected.”
After considering arguments from both sides, Justice Chandurkar reserved his judgment.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
